text:
2nd Postdoc after some questionable career pivots
I graduated with my PhD in biomedical science in December 2017. I went on to do a postdoc fellowship that lasted for 3 years. This time overlapped with the pandemic + me losing my father during the pandemic, so i was unfortunately unable to get any meaningful publications.
I attempted to do a career pivot into data science. I learned python and even signed up for a bootcamp from October 2021-Jan 2022. I even landed a position as a Product Analyst for a midsized software company.
However, the job was a bit of a deadend. I didn't get to expand my coding skills the way i wanted, and was laid off in May 2023 due to financial restructuring. That said, it was beneficial to me in that i figured out i wish to stay in science and apply my newfound coding skills to cheminformatics.
So now I really want to go back and do a 2nd postdoc in computational medicinal chemistry and computer aided drug design. Most of the positions I've looked at in Industry and academia have a five year post grad year cutoff. My position is especially precarious because i am in my early 40s and haven't been in a research lab since 2020. I have several projects im working on to keep my skills up, but my current job search has lead to nothing but deadends, even when utilizing my networks and academic connections.
How would you suggest I move forward? Is it still possible for me to get a 2nd postdoc this late in the game? Or would it be better for me to try to stay in analytics and give up on science?

Have you been applying for positions in computational bioinformatics etc at research hospitals and other companies? Have you talked to folks in those roles? You say “positions I’ve looked at”…

Yep. I haven't made it past applicant tracking systems and often get replies of "we decided to go with other candidates". I thought that going back and doing another postdoc would give me the additional training i needed in order to gain more experience.

Yeah, that is not how you get a job. You almost always need to reach out to the potential future manager as well, as long as your profile isn’t totally obviously a fit. Until you have done that and had actual conversations with real people who hire for these roles, I would not do another post-doc.

Most of the announcements on LinkedIn and other job application sites do not list the contact information for the hiring manager or the person I'd be working for. That said, I will do this for the few I see where the person is listed. For the times I did reach out, I didn't get a response.

I think you can do basic googling and linked in searching to identify the person as well.

Yes, you can still land a postdoc, no matter how long ago you did your PhD, and even if you had a pivot to industry.
There are some countries, e.g. Germany, where government-sponsored postocs have a limit on how long ago you got your PhD. But for the rest of the world, "postdoc" just means  low-paid job for overqualified people with a PhD who insist staying in academia. This is not to say that you should not do a postdoc. I did two and then moved on to the tenure-track. But other people are happy staying in postdocs for a long time, and that includes a friend of mine who died of old age (hearth attack) as a postdoc. Some see postdocs for what they are, technical positions, and still figure out that it's a good job compared to the alternatives. After all, in the US almost all jobs are "hire at will", which in practice means "fire at will." In that sense, the transient nature of the postdoc just makes it a job like every other job.
There are no guarantees that a postoc job will turn into a permanent academic position, but you probably already know that.

The 'five year post grad year cutoff' in most cases is not a hard or even legal requirement but more a nice to have. Not satisfying it will reduce your chances but definitely not preclude you from getting an offer.


text:
Ask for a reduction in conference registration fees
I submitted a paper to an international conference, but the registration fees were initially undetermined. Once the list of accepted papers was published, the conference website provided information about the registration fees with some reductions offered for participants from low-income countries. However, two weeks later, the registration details were unexpectedly changed, and no reduction is now available. This situation has left me unable to participate, even though I had already committed to preparing and submitting my camera-ready paper based on the previous registration information.
Given these circumstances, I am contemplating whether it would be appropriate to communicate with the conference editors to request a reinstatement of the reduction option.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/77884/68109

Yes, given all the circumstances you list it would be perfectly reasonable and proper to ask for a reduction.
The change in rules was either an accident or, sadly, evidence that something is wrong. Are you sure that it is reputable and respected? If not, you might consider withdrawing your paper.
I'd also worry, at least a bit, if they make no accommodation.

The change of rules might have come about after rechecking the budget, the various costs of the conference and the number of people qualified for the reduction. Still perfectly reasonable to ask though.

In computer science, conference often offer financial support to folks in your situation. There should be an option to contact the conference chairs, you should tell them exactly what you wrote here - especially that your plans relied on an initial written promise for financial support.
Conferences also sometimes have student volunteer/doctoral mentoring programs that offer your discounts on registration in exchange for sitting at a booth and handing out badges (you get a free T-shirt too!).
Contacting your university and asking if they can help is also an option.
Finally, some organizations offer travel grants (e.g. the NSF offers travel grants on a first-come first-serve basis, and some professional organizations such as ACM or IEEE offer ad-hoc support).
If you cannot get funding, contact the chairs and ask if participation is a necessary condition for paper acceptance. It may be possible that they will allow you to present remotely, or ask you to find someone who will present your work in your absence. Both aren't great choices, but are probably the best in your circumstances.
Good luck!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do I apply for a PhD in physics in France?
I am currently a master student in physics in my last year and am thinking about doing my PhD in France. The application process seems to be quite different from my home country and I can't find any satisfying sources online. Do I first have to find a thesis before applying to the doctoral school and university? Furthermore, can I only apply to published thesis proposals on the websites of the lab or is it also common to just write the labs and/or researchers I would like to work with for possible open positions? I could also not find any details about what such an application should involve so I would be glad about any further information!

See the answer for France at the link above.

There are mostly two* kinds of fundings for (theoretical**) PhDs in France:

Contracts funded by a project: these are often thesis proposals with a predefined subject and advisor, and the funding is allocated by the project leader(s);
Contracts funded by an école doctorale (ED): there is a given number of contracts per year and per ED, and the funding is allocated by the ED board.
To apply, you have to find an advisor and to fix a subject with them. The detailed procedure then depends on the ED.
Notice that the ED tend to fund mostly local candidates, since they have a limited amount of contracts (and it is often way too few to provide a funding for all the local master students), but this is not a general rule and exceptions are common.

In any case, you should first get in touch with researchers you would like to work with. Looking for researchers that have money (i.e. recently got a research project accepted; in France they are mostly called "ANR" and "ERC" projects) might help to be funded.
You can also ask them to make an internship with them, if you have some time; it is easier for researchers to support the ED application of someone they know (and they usually don't support more than one student per year).

(*) In fact three, but let's forget about the ENS and Polytechnique fundings: if you're a student of these schools, you already know about them.
(**) Some private companies (or administrations) also hire PhD students, usually on more applied subjects. These are either "CIFRE" contracts or "contrats doctoraux de droit privé". Depending on your subfield, you may also find something interesting in this direction! Even for these contracts an academic co-advisor is required, and you get a "true" PhD in the end.

For getting in touch with the researchers - does one already send some kind of application with records etc. or more like a preliminary email to tell them one is interested in working with them?

I would say something in between, an informal email but with enough information on who you are. But this probably depends on the context.

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


text:
How direct can I be in a Cover Letter?
I'm applying to an elite liberal arts college for a tenure-track job and all the advice I'm seeing suggests that it's even more essential than in applications to other schools to make clear I am attracted to the institution and that I understand it.
But this raises the question: how direct can be about it? Can I actually say, e.g. "I have long wanted to work in a liberal arts college setting because...' (small groups, close-knit setting, etc.)? I'm from a system where small-group teaching is the main mode of teaching and personal pastoral relationships between lecturers and students are at the heart of university life, so I absolutely mean all this - but is this just too direct a way of saying this? Or do I need to be a more "show, don't tell" (which I would do, but I'm already having to cut a lot from my draft so I was hoping this doesn't actually need to go beyond two or three lines)?
TL;DR: Is it crass/ineffective to say, "I want to work at this liberal arts college because it has the same sort of educational setting as the kind of college education I experienced as a student and lecturer abroad in a system none of the department are familiar with"? What's the alternative?

First off, I'm biased. I think that liberal arts colleges have a lot to offer to both students and faculty. Among other things there is the possibility of meeting and working with people with a wide range of backgrounds. So...
I'll suggest that you are correct in thinking that you can and should be pretty forward about really wanting to work at such a place. The last thing you want to do is leave the impression that you'd rather be working at a research institution where teaching was not the main goal. You don't need to gush, but it would be good to make it clear that you wouldn't think of such a job as the second place option.

Thanks for this - suggesting that this place is a back up is the last things I want to do, so I'll try to be forward about it (even though it doesn't come naturally for me)!

I see nothing wrong with what you propose to write.  Reviewers may have a natural scepticism to assertions that the applicant really wants to work in this type of institution ("Aw shucks, I bet you say that to all the institutions...") but since your proposed statement gives a clear and sensible basis for the expressed desire, it sounds plausible to me.  Your statement doesn't strike me as crass or ineffective and seems genuine and plausible.
The only slight critique I'd make here is that you refer to this institution having "the same sort of educational setting" as what you've previously experienced, but you don't say what you mean by this.  This makes the statement a bit vague and invites further scepticism of whether or not you really have a good idea of the "educational setting" at the school in question or whether you are just blowing smoke up their arse to get a job.  If it were me, I'd elaborate just a little bit to set out what I mean when I refer to the "educational setting" in question (and be prepared to explain further in follow-ups at an interview).

Thanks - I'll be more specific and describe the setting in my teaching paragraph!


text:
Should I make room in the my cover letter for a service paragraph or can the CV take care of the service element?
I'm applying for a tenure-track job in a small humanities field at a good, well-respected university. As you might expect, the ad says that candidates should "demonstrate a strong commitment to research, teaching and service". I have written a cover letter that is very much research and teaching focused, but am finding it difficult to fit in a paragraph on service. I think I've seen advice on the internet that suggests committees don't look for discussion of service in the cover letter - but I wonder if that's true (and also wodner what counts as service - for example, I've already mentioned I am (of course) willing to teach introductory courses as well as those in my specialization.) I'm not short on service experience (and I honestly enjoy it) - I have served on a handful of departmental and university committees, mentored students, contributed to curriculum reform, lots of outreach work, etc. - but most of these are already in my CV.
I suppose my underlying question depends on whether "demonstrate" means over the course of the application materials or in every job document: I would appreciate any thoughts on this.
TL;DR: Should I make room in the my cover letter for a service paragraph or can the CV take care of the service element?

It's not generally necessary to include a paragraph about service in the cover letter. If the applicant doesn't have much to say about it, there's no need to waste space writing "I've sat on a committee once and I can do it again when I have to."
But it could be useful in a few situations:

If there is a particular type of service you are especially experienced with, and it helps you stand out from the crowd, then it could be worth highlighting this in the cover letter. For example, if your whole field is in a moment of big curricular change, in this context it may be worth highlighting your prior experience with curriculum reform.
A well-tailored mention of service could help you show that you understand the kind of institution you're applying to. For example, if applying to an undergrad-only liberal arts college, it could be helpful to highlight your prior experiences mentoring a diverse population of undergraduates; but it might hurt to express your eagerness to advise PhD students, since that wouldn't be part of your job there.

Even so, you might not need a whole service paragraph. With these examples (curricular reform or mentoring undergrads), you might be able to note them briefly in your teaching paragraph.


text:
Applying for a PhD with professor X, when my prior research is in a different field?
In an ideal scenario, I’d like to do my (computer science) PhD at university U. I completely lack the credentials, and my MS work is in one of those areas where ~10 people in the world are capable of understanding/appreciating it (and it won’t be published anytime soon). Fortunately, one of those people is Professor X (they contacted me unexpectedly saying that they liked my work, having evidently seen my code-in-progress). Great, right?
Unfortunately, I don’t want to work with Professor X, I want to work with Professor Y, because I want to switch to a completely different field of CS. I have nothing against X or our field, I’ve just gotten really interested in Y’s field, and Y is arguably the best person in the world study under for these interests. So while I feel quite confident that I do want to make this switch, the fact is that currently I don’t have anything to “show” Y (in terms of credentials or research in their field).
Do I have any good angle here?

But how exactly? The only research I have is my thesis, which is in a topic arcane enough that it seems ~10 people in the world understand it.

Wait, how do you 'completely lack the credentials', yet are getting/have gotten a masters in the field? Talk to Y, apply to get in, see what happens. Nobody works on the same problem forever...

The question you should be asking is "How can I build some credentials in Y's field". Without such credentials, it seems unlikely that Y would be interested in hiring you.

This is a bit orthogonal, but my dissertation was (worldwide) accessible to about half a dozen people. But it resulted in a TransAMS publication. But I didn't have the conflict you do, since I loved that work.

Do I have any good angle here?

That depends on what you want to achieve and how long you’re willing to take to achieve it.

Fortunately, one of those people is Professor X (they contacted me unexpectedly saying that they liked my work, having evidently seen my code-in-progress). Great, right?

Is taking a short-term appointment with X an option? That will offer you a chance to work on your problem and get a reference from a world expert.

Well, if they agree ahead of time it’s a 6month/1 year visit then why would anyone be upset or surprised?

Can CS grad students do fixed, short-term appointments? I haven't  heard of this being a thing, although I did consider asking X about this (candidly of course). I'm not completely enthusiastic about this since it would mean working more in a topic I'm less interested in when I already feel like moving on to something that excites me more now, but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.

I had five of them over the years. They are often called research assistants or something of the sort. Not all professors have funding or inclination to do it, but it’s worth asking.


text:
When do you need Ethics Approval in Humanities research?
Sorry if this sounds clueless - I actually am. I'm in a historical, literary field so I've never had to worry about doing any ethics approval things because I've never had to deal with real, living humans in my research, but I'm thinking about writing an article on the perceptions of a particular author on social media.
Am I right in thinking that if I'm just reporting opinions that are already out there in the public forum, I don't need to worry about going through any ethics panels etc.?
Would I have to apply for ethics approval if I wanted to create an online questionnaire actively asking people for their opinions on a particular author? Or would that depend on what I did with the opinions I gathered?

If you are in the US, your institution has an IRB. They may have one specific to your field, even. Either way, they'll provide guidance. If not in the US, your country may have an equivalent or it may not. Wherever you are, it will depend on the rules of your government and institution.

Keep in mind also that some US based journals are very parochial about this sort of thing and will be really uncooperative about publishing things if there is no IRB equivalent even if one is in a country without an IRB equivalent for this type of study.

If You Are In The United States, Contact Your IRB
Everything this answer says is correct, but I want to add some anecdotal exhortation.
My advice would ordinarily be "talk to your advisor," and you absolutely should.  But I know of at least one case where the advisor was clueless and greenlit human subject experiments without any IRB involvement at all.  There were repercussions.  And this was some pretty benign human subject experimentation, with no risk to the subjects that anyone would ever identify. The point is, he (and his advisor) don't get to make that decision.
There may also be hidden factors in play.  My institution was on the draconian side, but that was because they were dealing with a major violation from before my candidacy (so much so that identifying it might identify my institution.)  The entire university was under a microscope, and until that microscope receded, we were under a No Sparrow May Fall protocol.
You do not want to wander into that sort of minefield (as my acquaintance above did) if you can avoid it with a 15 minute phone call.

This depends on two things: (1) your local authorities (country/state/locale) and (2) your institution.
In the US, institutions are required to have something called a Human Subject Review Board or similar name (sometimes just IRB) which will govern what kind of permits you need, the application process, documentation, etc.
The reason you need to ask your own institution is that the implementation of the rules is all over the place. Nobody wants a repeat of the barbarity of the Tuskegee experiments, so anything that requires injecting a human with something, you bet will require extensive review. But at some institutions the application process is ridiculously complex.  In the latter, to even ask questions you need a lengthy permit process, specialized training for everybody participating on the experimenter-side of things, and pages of written consent forms.

This is a weird answer because IRB rules are federal. There is some very slight room for interpretation on some of the really subtle points but generating a survey to get people’s opinions is always human subjects if it is for research and not a class project.

@Dawn It is true that the IRB rules are federal, but local jurisdictions can impose other criteria on top of the federal rules. For example: "Alignment with the goals and objectives of the Richmond Public Schools, with the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and with the policy for conducting research in the division..." https://irb.richmond.edu/policies-resources/state-policies.html

@Dawn And the implementation of those rules varies greatly among institutions. At some institutions, you submit a short proposal that the board quickly reviews, at other institutions everybody involved with the study is required to undergo extensive classroom training.

Research that involves an online questionnaire is likely to constitute human subjects research.  In the US, this typically requires review and approval by an IRB before you conduct the research.  Your university is likely to have an IRB and resources on how to submit a research proposal for review by the IRB.  I suggest you start there.
I want to be pedantic/nitpicky about one detail, and I ask for your indulgence on hearing me out on this:  Universities typically don't have ethics review boards.  They have institutional review boards (IRBs), which typically take responsibility for reviewing human subjects research.  That's not exactly the same thing.  Ethics is one of the considerations when an IRB reviews proposed research that involves human subjects, but don't call an IRB an ethics review board, and don't mistake them for ethics review boards -- that will give you the wrong intuitions.  IRBs don't get involved in every research project that might have any ethical implications -- they are responsible for human subjects research.
Research that does not involve human subjects can still have ethical implications, and in those cases, typically IRBs will not help you.  Instead, the researchers have the primary responsibility to consider the ethical considerations, ask for help if needed, and ensure that their research is ethical.
Moreover, even if you are doing human subjects research, and even if the IRB approves your research, I believe you also have an independent responsibility to ensure that your own research is ethical.  The point of IRBs is that you shouldn't be the only decider: you need others to review it, to avoid your own personal biases.  But I think it's also important to take personal responsibility as well.  Therefore, I recommend you only conduct human subjects research if (a) you believe it is ethical, and (b) an IRB approves it.

In Canada, the IRB-equivalant is called the "Research Ethics Board" (REB): https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/science-advice-decision-making/research-ethics-board.html

If you're doing research using data generated from humans, whether that's your own data collection, secondary analysis of somebody else's data collection, or just a collation of information that's already in the public domain, then it is important to consult your local guidance and speak to the ethics advisor at your institution.
Social media is a grey area, whether you need ethics or not is likely to vary depending on where you are and what exactly you are planning to do.  If you send your local ethics advisors a plan they will let you know what you need to do, and if nothing is required they will tell you and you'll have that in writing whenever you need it (picky journal reviewers/editors etc).
Ethics review is an area where 'its better to ask for forgiveness than persmission' absolutely does not apply.  It's way better to get it sorted early, and get a good relationship with your ethics committees than it is to try to get retrospective approval for something you have already done.


text:
How do I go about negotiating an academic job offer?
There are many questions on this site that deal with what can be negotiated once one has received an academic job offer. However, I cannot find anything addressing the mechanics of when and how to conduct the negotiations.
The typical timeline from the university side is:

Advertise a job
Interview candidates
Informal offer by phone/email
Formal offer in writing
Acceptance

At what point in this process does one typically start negotiating? Do you do it at the informal offer stage ("Gee, I'm flattered that you like me but there's no way I'll be coming at that salary...") or do you wait for the formal offer in writing? Do you submit a laundry list of all conceivable requests and see which ones they accept? Or do you simply tell them that you don't regard their current offer as sufficient, and see what they can do? I'm particularly interested in hearing first-hand accounts, from either side of the table.

You need to add a country tag!

To answer your question, according to some, the best time to negotiate is after an offer has been given by the potential employer. For one thing, they have already ruled out other candidates and they have now essentially decided on giving the position to you. The hiring process is arduous from their perspective as well and the last thing they want to do is to decline someone they have already decided upon because that person negotiated their salary with a reasonable increase.
You would need to know as much as possible about the expected salary before you could negotiate. The key to negotiation is always having sufficient knowledge. If you know that the offer that they gave you is not on par with other similar positions at that university/field, then you have something to point to. You can find salary information from sites like Glassdoor but more importantly, sometimes these are published by the universities themselves. For a lot of public universities, you can easily get his information by simply contacting the central finance department to get averages. In some cases, the universities themselves publish this information on their websites. A good tip to find salary figures is to search Google for:
site:theuniversity'swebsite "salary" "write the position here"
This will give you hits for all of the pages that mention a salary figure along with the position that you are interested in. Here is an example of that using Heriot Watt
site:hw.ac.uk "salary" "professor"
That query gives a couple of results with actual salary figures.
You also need to state why you should be given a higher salary. Chances are that they have already budgeted to be able to increase the salary for negotiation purposes. You still need to provide a good argument for why you deserve a higher salary. Does your publication level/quality warrant a higher salary? Do you have documents showing that you've received accolades for your research or teaching? Will your involvement increase the profile of the department due to your research networks? etc

https://data.chronicle.com/

@AnonymousPhysicist thanks, I haven't seen that one before!

If you've reached the on campus interview stage there should be some informal discussion of the job offer parameters then: salary range, teaching load, startup funding, ...
You and the institution will each find out then if you are on the same page.
If the interview leads to an offer you may be able to negotiate adjustments. By that time there should be nothing nonnegotiable. Of course  you are still free to accept better offers from elsewhere. You might be able to sweeten the pot a little by saying that you have such an other offer but would rather take this one if ...
This is based on my experience hiring in mathematics (it never came up in my job searches). We have had candidates we could not hire because we could not come close to meeting their needs, but we usually found that out before making a formal offer in writing. We never had to deal with a laundry list at the last minute, and would have been put off by a candidate who sprung one on us.

I found it typical that you would be asked for your requirements. If you ask for a lot, then you will need to negotiate. But if you ask for a lot, be prepared to say why. It isn't enough to just say "I want...". But if you have needs for initial research support or travel or whatever, then say that at the informal discussion phase.
If your "needs" aren't ridiculous, then you probably won't just be dropped, but they may not be able to meet all of them. But they may have alternatives. I once asked for a very high salary and explained that I had an international circle of collaborators and needed to travel beyond normal limits. They came back with an offer of a lower salary and the promise to cover the travel (and they did). There are a lot of ways to cook fish.
There are some places, however, that have fairly rigid scales for new junior faculty, and no real way to get around that. If there is a range and you request numbers at the higher end of it, make sure that your background and potential support that.
Even after you get an initial offer it is unlikely to be considered by the institution as the final offer. There is still room in most cases, but you need reasons to push it up, not just desires.


text:
What distinguishes acceptable use of a preprint server from unacceptable dual publication?
In answering this question, I wondered:
Many fields are now beginning to embrace preprint servers such as arXiv. Typically, authors upload a manuscript to the preprint server at the same time as they submit it to a journal. On the whole, this is seen as acceptable, and not as 'dual publication'.
On the other hand, submission of the same manuscript to two 'proper' journals simultaneously is (in all fields I know) regarded as serious misconduct.
Where, precisely, is the boundary between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' conduct here? What distinguishes a 'preprint server' from a 'journal'? At first glance, one might say 'peer review'. However, journals come in many forms, including 'open review' (where the submitted manuscript is available for anyone to read and comment on immediately), and 'predatory' (where any submission can be accepted without review if you pay the fee). Similarly, many recognised preprint servers exercise some basic quality control on submissions.

I guess the main principle is that there shouldn't be two archival versions of the same publication. Whether or not a preprint was subjected to basic quality control doesn't make any difference - it's not archival either way. Things that undergo open review but are not eventually accepted are also clearly not archival. And indeed papers in workshops that don't publish proceedings are generally non-archival. Publications in predatory journals sadly count as archival, as I understand it, so you wouldn't then be able to publish the same thing elsewhere.

@StuartGolodetz Doesn't this just translate the question into "what distinguishes archival"? And I don't know any good definition of that except "I know it when I see it". It probably also doesn't help that arXiv by name and description is an archive (of preprints). Personally if we are using semantics, I'd rather work with intent here; a preprint is intended as something before (pre-) the final publication (print).

@mlk Yes, on some level. Although I don't think the definition of archival is that unclear to be honest, at least in the field I work in (computer vision) - basically, if it's a journal paper, a conference paper, or a workshop paper that appears in published proceedings, that counts, whereas if it's a preprint, a rejected submission or a workshop paper that doesn't appear in published proceedings, it doesn't. The waters are muddied slightly by journals allowing you to publish extensions of conference papers with e.g. 30% extra material, but the rules are usually explicitly stated in that case.

To be honest, most of the time I've found it's fairly clear what the situation is, and on the rare occasions when it's not, a simple email to an organiser of the conference/journal to which you're submitting will usually clarify things. For example, we once had a paper that explicitly got accepted as a non-archival poster (not appearing in the proceedings), with an email saying that we could later submit it to another venue. Instead, we resubmitted it to the same venue a year later, but decided to explicitly clarify with them that that was equally ok (it was).

And yes, before anybody says re. my comment above, it's ill-defined what "30% extra material" means, but in practice, it means "whatever the journal editor is willing to accept as being 30% extra material" :) Some things get smoothed over by introducing a human into the loop, in practice.

Although there is conceivably that "archival" issue, involving the potential question of "which is the authoritative version?", I don't think that is the genuine point here.
So far as I can observe, the contemporary issues here are two: first, about "getting credit" twice for "one piece of work", and, second, about making referees (working for free) waste their time and energy.
In mathematics, in the U.S., decades ago, while it was nice to have more papers rather than fewer, it seemed to me that the real gauge of a person was not paper-count at all, but the aggregate of their work/ideas. The idea of worry about "self-plagiarism" did not make much sense then, and it still does disturb me, insofar as it seems to me reasonable to write/speak about one's ideas "endlessly", without having to promise to never repeat oneself. For that matter, some things are worth repeating, after all.
The not-wasting-referees'-time objection is more legitimate, to my mind.
In particular, then, in math, in the U.S., putting things on arXiv scores no publication-status-points (in math, currently), for many purposes. So it cannot possibly lead to double-counting in any score-keeping game. And there's no refereeing, so no waste of peoples' time.
Similarly, if one does a pay-to-publish publication, whoever's time it may or may not waste, it doesn't score any points status-wise, so there's no double-counting. (Unless one imagines that one's CV-readers don't know the differences among journals/venues.)
Back to the "archival" issue: conceivably traditional journals will maintain their documents longer than others...? Unclear.

Your question is based on a misconception. There is no such thing as an unacceptable use of a preprint server. You can upload anything you like there (assuming it is allowed by moderators), but no one will consider it as a form of publication, either dual or non-dual.
And yes, the issue is precisely the lack of peer review. And if there are journals that also don’t do peer review or do peer review that’s at a very low standard, then publishing in those journals also won’t get you very far in an academic career.


text:
How to adress failed PhD project from last year to gain admission at same University for Master's Degree?
I have the following issue with my application for a Master's Degree.
Last year, due to my families financial circumstances I dropped out of an PhD project.
Now I want to join the Univerisity under a Master's Degree.
In the admission papers it is stated I have to mention if I have previoulsy enrolled at the Univerisity and state the cirumstance and provide an explanation.
How can I respectufully adress this issue, and sincerely hope to gain re-admission? It was mainly due to financial issue in my family and as one family member deceased and my one of my parents lost employement.

I think that the best way to go about it would be to just be up-front with that you've been enrolled Before and that the loss of a close family member forced you to abandon the project. It all depends on the person on the other end going through the applications, it can go either way.
In any case i believe that NOT telling them about this has the chance of biting you in the future, so best just disclose it.


text:
Why do universities offer full fund positions to international student?
Many top universities in north America accept international ph.d. students and pay their tuitions, insurnace and other funds. To get visa, international students should convince the officer that they will go back to their home countries. I am wondering why universities should accept international students and what are the benefits for universities and the destionation universities?

Why shouldn't they? It isn't quite a rant, but seems awfully close to it.

I am guessing that Amin ask this because the university fees are not cheap

Voted to reopen: this question asks about benefits for the University, while the "duplicate" is about positive and negative effects for the host country. University may have interests orthogonal to those of the country.

Universities use Ph.D. students as teaching or research assistants. Essentially they are hiring you, with education being a part of payment.
Moreover, if a Ph.D. student becomes a famous or at least succefull scientist, it is very good for image of a university.

There are several reasons why universities benefit from attracting talented students, including international students:

Students do not learn only from the lecturers, they also learn from each other. The more talented students are there in the classroom, the more all students can learn (given that the process is organised correctly). The more diverse the cohort is, the more opinions and viewpoints is there to share, discuss and benefit from. International students bring diversity of opinion, experience and talent.
The currency of academia is fame. Universities are in constant search for the very best research staff, who is likely to produce world-leading results and secure international fame and recognition for the University. Similarly, Universities strive for the very best students in hope that after the graduation, their alumni will eventually become internationally recognised figures is sciences, engineering, enterprise, charity sector, politics, sports, etc. The success of alumni brings recognition and fame also to their alma mater. Some of them also donate, considerably, for the rest of their life, to their Universities.
Best students are a great pleasure to teach, and a great challenge to teach. Excellent student body attracts excellent staff and keeps them happy, contributing to general academic health of the place.

Compared to the benefits (actual and potential) drawn from the talent of the best students (both international and local), a few $$$s for their tuition fees is the money very well spent.


text:
Collaboration with other researchers except supervisors
I am wondering if it is ethical and acceptable that a Ph.D. student receiving fund and RA from a university and a Prof collaborates on a topic with other researchers and professors (other universities)?
In this situation, should we inform our supervisors?

Yes, it's totally ethical and acceptable. Research doesn't happen in a vacuum, and collaborations are generally beneficial to all parties. I cannot imagine any funding body or person preventing you from collaborating with others. Talk to your supervisor first, of course, as they may want to be part of the collaboration too.

I prefer to work independently.
The problem that I am worried about is that my supervisor may say that instead of your independent research you can work on your Ph.D. thesis and publish more papers (no matter how many paper I will publish. If I publish n papers as part of thesis and m independent research, my supervisor may say you can publish n+m paper related to your thesis.)

Yes it is ethical. Whether it is acceptable will depend on your field, your stipend situation, and your advisor. In all cases you should inform your advisor.
Field-dependence: In some fields (like humanities, possibly mathematics), you are not really using the advisor's physical resources, and the advisor/advisee relationship can be rather distant. In others (like engineering), you need your advisor's lab and experimental platform to conduct research, and the relationship is necessarily much closer. In the latter case, it is more likely that the advisor will place some restrictions on where and how you spend your time. For example, if the external collaboration involves their lab, their equipment, their resources, they are not going to react well to being "cut out of the loop."
Stipend dependence: Your stipend's source is also critically relevant. If you are on a contract PhD stipend, you are funded to perform specific work and you must hew pretty closely to that direction, regardless of the advisor's opinion on the subject. If you are funded directly from an advisor's grant funds, but whose specific research tasks are a bit fluid (the typical case in the US, for example), then your advisor may object to you spending a lot of time pursuing research outside of what their grant funds are paying you to accomplish. If your stipend is fully paid by the university or your own grant, then you are clearly the most free to act how you choose.
Advisor dependence: Some advisors may not pay too much attention to what you do, so long as you finish all the work they assigned you. Others will keep a closer eye on things and would object to you doing any work outside of their laboratory. Still others may be perfectly happy for you to pursue your independent work, but they would still want to advise you and furthermore probably want co-authorship on your eventual publications. However, in every case, I would make sure you discuss your plans, including who you are planning to work with and what you are planning to work on, very clearly with your advisor, so they don't find out after the fact that you just spent the past 5 months working on a dead-end project with their most hated competitor!
Personal perspective: I would most likely object to a student choosing to collaborate outside of my laboratory with no involvement whatsoever from me. My thinking is as follows: when I take a student on, I am making a commitment to them to train them to the best of my ability, and to usher them safely (as safe as possible, anyways) from the starting line to their successful PhD defense. As part of that, I would want a "sign-off" at the very least of any project a student took on, if for no other reason than to make sure the student wasn't wasting their time or getting involved in a project I didn't think was going to come to a good outcome. Then, if I approved, I'd want to be involved in the project going forward for the same reason, to continue to give my advice and keep the student moving productively forward towards their final defense. If they don't want my active mentorship, they should switch advisors! Of course, as a student gets closer to graduation, they'll get more and more leeway with me to do whatever they want to help foster their independence, but I'd still want to be kept informed at the very least.


text:
Is it legal to share some exercises with solutions of a book with students?
I am going to teach a course in the Winter term and I have access to the solution manual provided by the publisher. Is it legal to share some questions (not the whole questions) with their answers with students?

What do you mean by "share some questions"? Writing the questions on the blackboard as examples during a lecture? Handing out photocopies of a page or two of the questions? Providing non-downloadable access to the solution manual? Providing a digital file of the solution manual?

I am selecting some questions (less than 10 questions) from exercises of the book with their solutions and sharing them as a downloadable PDF file.  If it is not legal, can I use the question but change numbers in the question and solve it by myself and share them with students?

This may depend on the country.

I live in Canada.

If you assimilate the idea of the question(s), and redo/rewrite them in your own terms, perhaps citing that text as the "origin" of the (probably standard, well-established) ideas, I doubt that anyone would complain. "Fair use", probably.

The legality is questionable, but note that copyright violations are usually a matter of civil law, not criminal. But what you suggest in a comment (electronic PDF) could be considered a form of re-publishing.
Some answer manuals (mine, for instance) ask that the answers not be given to students in any form. They are provided just as a guide to the teacher to ease course preparation. You should probably follow that advice even if it is somewhat stricter than the law requires (see below).
While you can quote short segments of a copyrighted work for certain purposes, the law is often designed to forbid copying that lessens the value of the original. Maintaining creator value is actually the purpose of copyright. And, letting solutions provided by the authors into the public arena will certainly lessen the value of the book in the future. (The book itself, not just the answer booklet).
The other issue with copyright is that you can't normally copy/republish a "complete work". But that doesn't necessarily mean a complete book. A diagram within a book might be construed as complete in itself and so can't be copied. I don't know whether a "complete" question with its answer would be construed that way, but an aggressive lawyer might make such a claim.
But there is a further reason for not doing what you suggest. Not only is it possible that your electronic version will spread further, but pedagogically your students are better off developing solutions themselves than reading the solutions of others. There is much less learning value in reading solutions than in producing them. And even if the students memorize the solutions of others, there is much less learning value and much less chance that they will develop any insight into their field.
Much better is to assign the exercises and give minimal hints when people get stuck. Not "do it like this...", but "have you considered...?" or even "This is where you went astray".
Students can be misled into thinking they know more than they really do if you make it easier than it needs to be.

You want to check with the publisher.  To make this public or open access may violate the conditions under which you were supplied with the solution manual: it is certainly not recommended.  I doubt you’d be fined or sued but the publisher could simply refuse to grant you access to current or future material if you violate their condition of use.
IANAL but to post this material behind a firewall where only students registered in the class have access is probably legal.
A workaround occasionally tolerated is to make the document “non-searchable” so that Google etc can’t index the contents of the document: this can be achieved in various ways (including rewriting by hand).  The overarching concern is that if what you post is in the public domain then the textbook looses much of its appeal.

"IANAL but to post this material behind a firewall where only students registered in the class have access is probably legal." Copyright laws may vary and probably depend on the amount of content copied, but I don't know of any jurisdiction or situation where distributing the copy without a firewall would be illegal, and distributing it with a firewall would be legal. People do use firewalls for this, but mostly because it makes it harder to get caught, not because it makes it legal.

Distribution restricted to a private setting, such as among your family and friends, is usually way more tolerant than to a public audience; but the class setting certainly doesn't fit that description.


text:
What can a department chair do to support a new Assistant Professor?
The Department of Basket Weaving at Western North State University has just hired a new Assistant Professor (they start next month). The startup package is modest, but will cover the costs of setting up their lab.
The department wants to help the new hire settle in, develop an effective and well-funded research program, build their teaching profile, and generally become a useful and happy member of faculty. What can the Department Chair do (or encourage others in the wider department/university to do) to give this person the best possible start? The department cannot afford to spend more than ~$10k on this.

There are a couple of overt things that can be done. Perhaps the best is to give both a light teaching load for the first year and a choice of courses. Second is to try to prioritize any postdoc hires to be research-adjacent to the new prof. This aids in their developing both research and collaborative activity.
But, beyond that, working to integrate them personally into the general flow of the department through introducing them to other faculty and hosting discussions that would benefit all, but especially the new hire. In other words, make them part of the family. Even a social for faculty and spouses (or equivalent) can be a plus.
Of course, a recognition that the person lacks experience is also a plus and may require some action so that small problems don't grow. People need space to grow into a new and unfamiliar environment, but also guidance when necessary. The head can do this themself, but can also encourage other faculty to become mentors to the new one.

good course assignment is essential: courses where the new hire can shine will create a positive impression and will increase student recruitment opportunities.

I would also add "light committee work."


text:
Paths to specialize in antique book and manuscript conservation and handling
I am not sure whether this is the best place to field this question but I assume Academia is a reasonable fit. If someone is interested, initially as a hobby, in the collecting, cataloguing, rebinding, and conservation of old books and manuscripts what would be the best path to pursuing those activities in a more professional venue? How do people specialize in book handling and conservation?
From a hobbyist perspective say someone collects old Scandinavian Literature over 100-200 years old and engages in the study, preservation, and cataloguing of such books for posterity (these days one may do this individually with such digital online archiving projects as Project Gutenberg and Archive.org - sometimes accompanied with OCR for easy indexing of the text online). If such a person was interested in doing that more often in some formal capacity how would they pursue that?
Does one have to study Conservation Science and obtain a degree to handle documents for institutions that have rare and antique book collections, or say for museums that need periodic restoration of books from page yellowing and foxing? Could one alternately volunteer for a library that has a rare books department and enter in from that avenue? How does anyone end up being a manuscript conservation specialist? Surely the U.S. Library of Congress has people who do such things. And what title would they typically hold?

This is a borderline question. I'm not sure if it's too specialized (how many people will it help?) or not.

If it is a branch of Conservation Science then it should pertain to academics. Suggestions for a better Stack Exchange group to post this in are welcome. As for how many people it will help, academics is often about specialized fields of knowledge. In my mind it is the quality of such knowledge and not the number of people who know it that counts the most. In many fields only a few people could be called the world's foremost experts in a particular field (say textual criticism of Classical Greek manuscripts, for example), but I digress.

One of the criteria for a question to be appropriate for SE sites is that people other than the original poster should be able to benefit from the answer. (Will this question be of interest to future users of this site?)

Book conservation, restoration, and preservation are parts of library and information science. I suggest that you look into accredited masters programs in that field. In the US, the American Library Association is the accrediting body.

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


text:
How to differentiate which conference to publish to?
There are many conferences, let's take example cryptography.
I assume it makes a difference if you publish at a good conference
as compared to a bad conference. The question is then: how do I find
good conferences? How do I guess from web site if it is a good conference.
For example in cryptography Asiacrypt is one of the best. Let's say level A.
Let's say I want to publish in a lower rank conference say level B, but not level C.
How do I find conferences from level B?

I don't think this is really something you can discern from looking at the conference's own website, or any other websites.  You need to talk to people that work in the field to see how highly they regard the conference.

You seem to assume some linear scale. Naive, I think.

What does the tag "early-career" mean in this case? Are you a PhD student, a PostDoc, did you just get an assistent professorship? The answer may depend on this.

I think this is too field-specific for this site.

That's the most difficult case, since there are no advisors or colleagues that you could ask. I'm afraid I can only give heuristics: Assume you know some level A conference in some area. Who are the PC members of that conference (probably some big shots)? Where else do these people serve on the PC? At which conferences do they publish? Which conferences are cited in the proceedings of  the level A conference? As I said, these are only heuristics, but I think they are sufficient to weed out total crap.

No, I meant Level A. Essentially, the idea is to choose a conference where the top researchers publish their not so strong results, i.e., still a good conference, but not Level A.


text:
Why does the Discipline of the Bachelor Degree matter for most Non-US Architecture Master Programs but not for US Architecture Master Programs?
After some research, I've noticed that in the US it's mostly possible to apply for M.Arch programs regardless of the Bachelor discipline while outside the US a Bachelor in Architecture is required.
Why is that?
The master in the US takes 3 years for non-B.Arch people while in US/Europe it takes 2 years for B.Arch people.
Can one additional year make up for the 3 to 4 year Bachelor degree?
Or is this whole idea just a marketing-gag of the US universities?
(And if anyone has some experience: In general, how successful are non-B.Arch people in M.Arch programs?)

I suspect it's to do with the level of specialisation in an undergraduate degree in the US compared to elsewhere.

So what research / evidence?

Bachelor/Master programmes in the rest of the world usually work totally different. A bunch of idiotic politicians enforced adopting the names, but never had any idea or regards for contents.

In the US, a bachelor's is almost always half or more liberal arts - that is, a bunch of different subjects outside the major. It is run in such a way that basically little more than literacy and slightly more than arithmetic are assumed to have been developed in previous education.
For example, a student often has 4-5 classes each semester for 4 years. Of those, only 1-2 are usually in the major each semester, though some majors start with 0-1 classes in early semesters to "get the general education classes out of the way", then later semesters are more focused. This is one of the reasons double majors are not so rare here - if you can count some of the other majors requirements as "general education" (you often can), and take electives in the second major, you can end up managing to do both majors without taking much longer to earn the degree.
At the master's level, the extent to which a closely related bachelor is preferred varies, but is rarely required regardless of subject - only at very picky departments is it a big deal.
Is 1 year of focused master's education a replacement for having a same-subject master's degree? It isn't a perfect replacement, but mostly yes. It will tend to be more demanding and hard on the student as they have to play catch-up, so this is not as attainable for all students - but it is well within the realm of human possibility, especially when motivated by the fact that all the coursework is much more likely to be strictly necessary to support future courses. There is a lot of optional "not that hard to figure out on your own if you actually cared and had a use for it" stuff in higher education, after all.
I personally know some CS and art/design people who've done MS in architecture in the US and they seemed to do fine. I'm sure it is harder the less applicable your previous education is, but it is not at all an alien thing here to switch subjects like this.

Sadly I'm not allowed to upvote but your answer was very helpful and has made things more clear to me. Thanks!


text:
Funded PhD in the UK with a Distinction in MSc and a low undergraduate CGPA
I completed my undergraduate degree in engineering at the best university in my country of origin, almost a decade ago. I completed the undergraduate program with a 2.9 CGPA  on a 4.0 GPA scale, which roughly equates to an overall B grade (74.5%). Owing to my very difficult personal circumstances at the time, I had to repeat 6 failed courses and completed my degree in 5 years instead of 4. I later completed a master's degree at a mid-ranking UK university - a former polytechnic, albeit one with a very good history and a good reputation in my subject area - with an overall distinction and an A1 grade in my dissertation. I had the opportunity to start a funded PhD at that university at the time, but I wasn't really interested then.
Since completing my master's program, I've worked in the industry for nearly 8 years. Now, at 35 I would like to apply to a good PhD programme at a top ranked university next year. I'm very passionate about my research topic and  have drafted a very good research proposal. Will my undergraduate record have any bearing on my application?

Maybe. It shouldn't stop you getting into a university, but it might make it hard to get funding. You should certainly talk with your potential supervisor and explain the difficulty, rather than just applying - but that's good advice anyway! If the undergrad results potentially put (for example) research council funding out of reach, they may know about (for example) internal university funding that is more flexible.

Yes, but exactly what, won’t be known until you submit the application(s).

This is discipline specific to some degree and you haven't specified your discipline. I'll answer for my general fields (social science and humanities) as I suspect it is roughly similar across the board.
Your top master's result will go a long way to negating your okay undergraduate result, at least when it comes to research council PhD funding. There's a tick box to tick on the evaluation which pretty much gets ticked if there is any first at all. However, to get PhD funding from a UK research council you must be a Home or EU student, which you don't say if you are. If you aren't Home/EU things are a bit more dire.
Indeed, it's dire for everyone: the biggest shift I've seen in the 8 years since you were offered a funded PhD place is a huge reduction in the number of funded PhD places available in the UK. This may not have stretched to every discipline, but I'd be surprised to find one that didn't have some reduction in that timespan. I started my PhD in 2006 with a 2:1 in both my undergrad and masters and I got funding via an oxbridge college. I can't see flying now.
If you are not a Home/EU student, you'll likely be dependant on internal Uni funds and you're likely to find less of those lying around compared to 8 years ago. Since the same number (or more) people are competing for less internal Uni funding, things like a lower undergrad result will likely come in to play.

FWIW the OP does mention an undergraduate degree in engineering, but I agree that they haven't specified the discipline in which they wish to pursue a PhD

@GrotesqueSI My undergraduate and masters degrees are in Electrical Engineering and computer science respectively. I would like to pursue a PhD in computer science. I am now a naturalised British citizen and therefore considered a home student.

@GrotesqueSI Also, forgot to mention I'm halfway through completing a graduate diploma course in Mathematics at a top UK university. I'm hoping to complete it with distinction and straight A's in all modules. It is a distance learning course and assessments are based on annual exams held in London each year. I suppose this would help my application, as the research topic I'm interested in requires a strong background in mathematics.

Than you can go for research council funding and apply for advertised positions, so you're better off than many! The first should tick the previously mentioned literal tick box.

I think no need to be too worried about the undergraduate marks then.

@GrotesqueSI Thanks.


text:
Who decide about a journals Impact Factor? What are the measurements?
Dears,
I am wondering on who decides the Impact Factor of a journal? I am a writer, reader, and editor myself and consequently come across several papers. What surprises me though has to do with the inconsistency of ratings. The Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, one of the best in the country is rated low despite all the good work the journal has done over the years. I checked all the indicators and I believe the journal deserves more rating. So, I wish to hear from whoever is involved in rating journal.
Appreciate genuine and positive response
Mirgissa Kaba (PhD)

No one decides. It is calculated (see https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_impact_factor_calculated). Note that a huge number of senior researchers don't believe in it as a quality criterion but they use it to advertise their scientific achievements. The impact factor in 2018, for example, is computed as: (Citations in 2017 + Citations in 2016) / (Publications in 2017 + Publications in 2016). For more details, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

I am voting to close this question. The Wikipedia page has a detailed explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

Just by hazard, are you the editor of that journal?

@Younes That's only partially true: it's calculated, but ISI decides what counts as a "citation" and what doesn't, in an arbitrary and non-verifiable process. This is described in the Wikipedia page you cited.

@FedericoPoloni ISI defines what a citation is. This is applied to all journals and does not make ISI decides about a specific journal impact factor. I think the question is about who decides that a journal A should have a higher impact and B a lower one.

@solar-mike "Mirgissa Kaba" is indeed listed as the Editor-in-Chief of the Ethiopian Journal of Health Development.

Could we please be more careful in choosing the correct reason when we vote to close a question? Surely this one has other problems, but it is within the scope of the site.

The impact factor isn't necessarily a measure of usefulness or how much good a journal has done; it's calculated by a mathematical formula related to the number of citations and articles that journal has released. No one individual or organisation decides on the impact factor of a journal.


text:
Will it hurt my chances of getting another PhD if I leave my current ESRC funded one?
I have an ESRC scholarship for my current PhD, but my relationship with my supervisor has broken down and I can't make progress. If I leave this PhD, will that harm my chances of getting a different PhD or funding?

Please explain to the international community what is "ESRC", as the majority of users would not have heard about it.

I am also in the UK looking to see what my options are about starting a new PhD. I am STFC funded, but am (but more was) curious about ESRC work.I emailed ESRC about this and got this response:

... For more information about our DTPs and CDTs visit: https://www.ukri.org/councils/esrc/career-and-skills-development/funding-for-postgraduate-training/

https://www.ukri.org/publications/esrc-postgraduate-funding-guide/

Just to add a final point, in addition to the guidance my colleague highlighted previously, please note that as per p10-11 of the Postgraduate Funding Guide: Students who have already received government funding for Master’s-level or PhD-level training may apply for further funding but the total length of funding available plus previous government funding will not normally exceed four years for full-time study (or the part-time equivalent).

They also said this earlier in the email chain:

In particular, you should be aware that ESRC ‘does not expect its
funding to be used for students who have already completed a
substantial proportion of a PhD… Studentships should not normally be
awarded to students who have already had a period of full-time
postgraduate training at the same or higher level, or employment that
is the equivalent of such training, unless support for them would
clearly represent a good investment of public funds… taking into
account the individual circumstances and other applicants for the
limited number of ESRC awards. (p. 11)’ In other words, a student who
had already received UKRI studentship funding would have to make a
highly persuasive case that further support was justifiable and
represented good value.  I’m only able to give you highly generic
advice. You might find it helpful to discuss your situation with
student services in your institution or other sources of postgraduate
support.

At least within science, I am getting a vague impression that if I finish my current PhD I can apply for another. It's not ideal, I'd prefer to simply switch, but it may mean I get a second chance at being able to aim for something I want.

If you want to switch to another CDT and similar PhD programs see excellent answer by @RealDisinformation.
Otherwise, I don't see a strong relevance to the organization that funds your PhD here (in this case ERSC). What important is your track record and CV. If you drop out from a PhD program and then apply to another one without a good explanation ("falling out with my supervisor" is probably the least desirable explanation to potential supervisors), then this may be flagged by the PhD admission committees and potential supervisors.
On the other hand, this is not saying it is will be impossible to get a new PhD post, assuming either the admission committee does not know about your previous PhD program or you have a good explanation for dropping out.


text:
Are undergraduate honors still worth mentioning in CV after graduate school?
I recently graduated with a PhD in biology and I'm staying in the same lab as a postdoc for a year. I need to look for postdoc positions elsewhere soon, so I need to update my CV. My CV from undergrad lists my undergrad honors, including Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, highest departmental honors from my first major, and valedictorian in my second major.
Now I wonder if the undergrad honors are still relevant, because I didn't feel like they meant much to my performance in graduate school, because except for the highest departmental honors which requires research, the other honors come from grades, while grades no longer matter so much in graduate school and beyond. Research is very different from classroom learning. OK, Phi Beta Kappa also requires going beyond one major and learning a foreign language, but to be honest, to this date I'm still not sure if joining PBK is worthwhile.
I suppose the PI's would look at publications and presentations instead. I published in Nature and the paper is widely cited. I have also been invited to give seminars, which I think are more relevant and impressive than the undergrad honors. So I wonder, are undergraduate honors still worth mentioning on my CV after graduate school? Thanks for your suggestions!

I've left my undergrad stuff on my cv since I thought it was relevant when applying for teaching jobs at undergrad liberal arts schools. Probably not so important but it seemed relevant to me.

Maybe. They certainly belong on a cv, but what you submit with your postdoc application might be closer to a resume. See the difference here.
That academic site does suggest the full cv for a postdoc. Your cover letter should of course speak to your particular fit/value at this particular lab.

By the time you finish your PhD, there should be relatively few references to undergraduate experiences on the CV, but you can include some of this information in the lines where the bachelor's degree is listed.
E.g. -
B.S. Biology (Hons) & Chemistry (Valedictorian), Name of School, summa cum laude, 2014

It depends, but it can be worth it!
I'll give you a related example: in my program a lot of students took the bachelor's degree and only very few continued with the master's (of course, mostly people with good performance continued).
This resulted in 20% of master's students getting honours, while for the bachelor's it was just 7%. In this situation showing the honours on the bachelor (and possibly mentioning the statistic) is a much more significant qualification

It sort of depends.. The more mature you become in your career, the less relevant the older stuff becomes. At the same time, hiring committees are strange beasts and while Mr X might not give a toss about something, Mrs Y might and vice versa about something else.
I will give you an analogy. In Math, we have math olympiads and that sort of things. Personally, I really don't care if someone was on a high ranking Putnam team or got a medal in the IMO. However, I have sometimes sat on hiring committees with colleagues who do care. When applying for a tenure track position, you're competing with anything from 50 to 500 others, so if that info gets you a second look from one committee member, good. That's not what will get you hired, but it might mean someone wants to defend your application a bit and that might land you on the long list.
So I would recommend leaving the info in. But make it short, as someone suggested.

In my opinion the CV should be brief (max 2 pages) and must highlight your most important academic achievements. PIs don't have time to read pages filled with small details about your education and undergrad experience. You will be invited for an interview if your profile stands above the others. A lengthy and excessively detailed CV may simply be ignored and trashed. So, what do PIs check first?

Where you did your PhD (if in a prestigious institute and under well reputed supervisor).
What you publishd (a Nature paper is awesome! Congratulations).
If you won any scholarship or grant (there's always a high demand of postdocs able and willing to acquire funding for their own salary).

What is less important, but still worth mentioning?
If you still have some space left in this 2-page CV you are welcome to include a honors and awards section, where you can list the prizes and acknowledgement you obtained, starting from the most recent (undergrad honors at the end). I also try to mention my talks at international conferences (selected from abstracts or invited). This basically shows that you are capable of communicating your data in front of a broad scientific community. I always advise against listing the poster presentation. Nobody really cares if you made a poster.
This is my recommendation. Good luck with the job search.


text:
We have a multi-author conference paper. What to do if one co-author does not respond when extending it to a journal paper?
We have a multi-author conference paper. However, when we try to extend it to a journal paper, one co-author does not respond (and thus we cannot obtain permission of the submission). The extended part itself is hard to form a paper by itself (and it will be incomplete even if possible). Let's assume that this co-author will never respond. What should we do in this situation?

Nag them until they respond. Try calling them up. When you're nagging them, make it clear that you're just asking for permission, and not help in rewriting it. (If they've been confined to a mental institution, go ahead and publish it without their permission.)

Check this with the journal you want to submit to. If you don't actually need them to submit this as a journal paper, this is what you'd ideally do:

Let them know you're writing an extension
Write the extended paper
Send the paper to them with a note saying "Unless you let us know otherwise, we plan to submit to journal X at date Y."
Submit, briefly explaining the situation to the editor.

Explaining the situation to the editor might not be necessary when it's clear that the unresponsive co-author will never consider objecting. This boils down to personal judgment; some people are more agreeable than others.


text:
Should a reviewer trust promises made in the rebuttal?
Many Computer Science conferences offer a rebuttal phase, and it often does not require the authors to upload an updated version. Instead, the authors clarify things and many also make promises. What are reviewers supposed to do with these promises? Should the reviewer trust it or ignore it? The promises may not be fulfilled at all eventually.

Most conferences will have the PC chairs provide guidance, and ultimately make decisions, in these matters. So it's not strictly speaking something that a reviewer or regular PC member needs to worry too much about.
However, from what I have seen in Software Engineering conferences, "promises" are largely ignored in rebuttals. Rebuttals are seen as a way clarify things that the reviewers may have misunderstood or missed, not as a "response letter" where the authors vaguely promise changes in the camera-ready version. Some conferences have even made this explicit in the call - they specifically limit the rebuttal to reactions to reviewer comments and clarifications of material and data that is already reported in the original submission. That is, the following rebuttal is ok:

Reviewer 2 seems to have misunderstood the scope of the submission and think that we have only looked at narrow scope A, while we have actually researched the wider scope A+B. We agree that this was not sufficiently clear in the description of the research method, but we believe that this can be fixed with an improved textual description of the method in Section 2.

Conversely, the following rebuttal will probably not get you far:

Reviewer 2 was disappointed that the scope of our study was only narrow scope A. However, we have additional data related to B and will present these results in the camera-ready version.

(note that strictly speaking the first version also contains a small promise, but it's a simple one of a small textual change - most committees will give the authors the benefit of doubt here, and even if the authors don't make good on this promise the world will probably not end)
That said, many conferences now seem to implement a "shepherding" mechanism, whereas (some) authors only receive a conditional accept under the condition of implementing what they promise in the rebuttal. In that case, either the PC chairs or a designated PC member will follow-up after submission of the camera-ready version whether the main comments have been addressed as promised. This is not typically done for all, or even for most, papers, but only for a small subset of papers where the reviewers asked for rather specific changes, which are both essential enough that the paper can only be accepted after they have been implemented and small enough that they can realistically be done in a day or two. One example that I have recently seen was a highly relevant and interesting study, where the reviewers felt like the authors were overselling their results in one specific aspect. The reviewers wanted to make sure that this was removed in the camera-ready version, and this was assured through a conditional accept and shepherding.

I thought about this a lot when I first started reviewing for conferences and discussed this with other people. I will give a sum up how I handle it as a result of these discussions but it seems to be a quite controversial question.
I choose to give the benefit of the doubt except there are explicit reasons not to. Rebuttal periods are normally one week and limited to 1 or 2 pages, there is only so much additional results that can be produced and included. Also, generally doubting the sincerity of all authors is not feasible on the long term. You might also doubt that the numbers they report are not true because you do not have the code to check it.
Although it was not really the question, the second part is about how to avoid only getting promises:

Precisly state in the review which of your concerns are crucial for acceptance. I often see reviewers who do not make it clear what their priority for the rebuttal is and then the rebuttal is full of replies to minor comments. (For example, stating all the parameters used for training is useful in the paper but not useful in the rebuttal.)
Phrase your actual concerns instead of saying which additional experiments/comparisons would ease them. (The difference between "Please compare to initializing with this baseline" (easily promised) and "I do not see why this complicated strategy should be better than this simple baseline") In my experience, this leads to more interesting answers.


text:
PhD student leaving current program for reasons of safety. Recommendations for what to do next in terms of schools and catching up?
I am a PhD student who lost a year in school due to factors beyond my control.
First, several non-school related issues made it difficult for me to focus on school. Then, a little later, I was harassed and threatened by someone in my program. The harassment continued for a couple of months before I ceased leaving my house altogether. Eventually I talked to the graduate supervisor about the situation. They agreed that it might be best for me to leave for a while. But, I am left with two problems:

Most deadlines for schools have past. The ones that haven't, don't seem like a good bet by way of funding. Should I try to find a program to apply to anyway? If not, what can I do to get my year back? I was kind of on a roll before, but now my thought processes feel stagnant and slow — Any recommendations for getting back up to speed?
My grades from this year are poor. I do not think they accurately reflect my academic potential or my understanding of the material. Should I be explaining any of the extenuating circumstances to prospective schools when I do apply?

A fellow student harassed you to shut-in status, and you're the one who had to quit? That seems like nonsense. Your university should be afraid that you will be suing them into the ground, and probably should be giving you a break on the classes you couldn't attend due to harassment. They should be doing everything in their power to fix this for you.

They did say they would "vouch" for me when I applied to other schools. Though, I am not really clear on what that means. They did renew my fellowship despite the grade dip and I think that might have been them trying to amend the situation.

@BillBarth Unfortunately, although it is indeed nonsense, it does happen way too much in practice that the victim ends up moving.

There were other problems that I am hesitant to describe in detail in a public forum. (For anonymity purposes.)
The harassment was kind of the last straw, I was already really mentally drained. These other problems had to do with my physical location so me leaving is beneficial. Also, I kind of want to leave, I don't like feeling like I can't walk to my office at night to grade or whatever…

Was it someone on the faculty who harassed you, or a student?

student. a former friend. or i guess still technically a friend, I just hid from them now..

I almost get the feeling that your school is trying to get you out the door as quickly as possible so that you don't make a huge stink about the harassment. Here's a test (since you say they would "vouch" for you): Ask them to acknowledge in writing your harassment incident.

I think I don't understand how these things work. The only thing my school has as evidence that this occurred was my personal account. All the harassment occurred outside of the academic buildings. I was afraid of running into the person at school but they couldn't forcibly detain me there. How could I sue the school at all? Why would they be responsible? I made friends with that person. Presumably I made them angry.. Not that this justified their behavior, but I don't see how anyone owes me anything. I really appreciate the input, i just don't understand it.

This sounds like a circumstance that calls for legal intervention.  You describe intense harassment and forcible detainment. Your former friend's actions are probably illegal, and almost certainly rise to the level of a restraining order.  (I am not a lawyer.)  Please find both counseling and legal help. And please, for your own sake, stop calling the other person your friend; they are not. Friends don't do that.

You said that you are the only witness, speaking as a tech nerd, forensics enthusiast etc, perhaps you should also consider getting a small camera or microphone disguised as a pen or something and have it with you just in case, i think you can get new ones for $30 or something, video and audio are evidence that should lead to direct arrest. Just in case something happens in the future. Do not threaten them with this however, go straight to the authorities, perhaps also send a copy via e-mail to the faculty so that they cannot deny they were addressed and have to take action.

Also if it is only one person you could check into self defense, I hear Krav Maga is relatively fast to learn (you can probably learn to handle most situations within the summer) and very effective, it's best to have a back up plan for the future.

@keyswitch What you describe is a highly illegal behavior. The other person should be expelled from school. There should be no consequences to you, and the school in fact should face negative legal consequences if they interfere with you resolving this matter. As much as I'm anti-lawsuit, you have every moral right to sue the school to the ground if they interfere. What you describe is highly troubling. The fact that no physical violence has occurred doesn't lessen how grave a situation it is.

@user3079666 Recording someone without their permission or knowledge is highly illegal ($2,500 + 1 year jail) depending on the jurisdiction. And while a martial art is very good for confidence, the motivation is to avoid physical confrontations, not to use the techniques on a harasser. I could see martial arts, over time, turn someone into a person with visible self confidence who others would not harass, even if they were unaware of that person's training. However an ill conceived plan to use force could backfire, leading to the harasser hurting the OP, or taking legal action against them.

If the OP wishes to practice martial arts that may boost their confidence. And if they have someone to be a material witness that is better than a recording. I believe the best action for them would be to file a formal complaint of harassment through the school, even as the only witness the school must investigate. And if the harasser has any further contact the OP can go to the local police and ask if criminal charges, or at least a retraining order, are possible.

@keyswitch (above I suggest that recording without permission is a bad idea) However, if the harasser sends any electronic communication that could be construed as harassing they open the door for you to take those communications to the police. Electronic threats are covered under U.S. Code 18 Chapter 41 subsection 875(c) and carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

@kleineg I think recording in public is not illegal,I of course do not know the specifics, but shooting video in public certainly is not.Plus, in harassment, it's about proving you are being harassed, I can't see any judge holding it against you when you are the victim (as in self defence).Granted,if you can prove it without recording that's best, but a recording is undeniable. As for martial arts, it's best to be prepared - by no means provoke or strike first, but not be vulnerable. And what you said about confidence is very important indeed, a confident fellow is less likely to be picked on.

I think the department is 'on the hook' to do more than just vouch for you (whatever that means). Sit down with your advisor and the graduate supervisor. Work with them to identify programs which would be a good match for your research plans and with which they or other department members have strong ties. They should be working their networks to help you transfer as easily as possible.
If you're only a year in, you might also want to think about whether you want to cleanly start over at the new university--retake any classes, etc. as opposed to trying to get credit for any classes you passed in your current program. Were you accepted to other programs before? See if one of those are still a good match.
I know you want to move for various reasons, and you may not want to do anything with the person who harassed you. However, if that person is not getting punished, counseled, or something, the problem is likely to recur with someone else. Ask the department to do something, if only to require the person to undergo a psychological evaluation.

Yes, the only reason I decided to tell anyone in the first place was that I figured they were going through some serious mental issues because of their behavior and that they needed help. The grad supervisor said that they would make sure that people talked to the person, and last time I asked how they were doing the supervisor said the person in question seemed to be doing better.

I can't tell how much of their harassment was intentional, they were just very controlling of who i interacted with–they threatened to beat up someone who had talked to me, in a particularly impassioned way that was a little disturbing because it was so disproportionate to the situation. Also, sometimes they wouldn't let me go home. They told me I could go when they were done talking... and they made lots of "jokes" about killing me or raping me, often at the very same time that they were keeping me from going home.
But they didn't physically hurt me at all. Is that punishable behavior?

@keyswitch Yes, that behavior you describe is punishable. You have suffered emotional abuse and lost a year of precious time in your studies, and this creep is still wandering around not having been dealt with in the proper way.

...by the police.

You bet that is punishable, harassment and sexual harassment, physical threats and so on are things that I could easily see in the police report.

I know everyone else has said this as well, but this is certainly a level at which it should be taken to the authorities (i.e. police).  It isn't just 2-3 random people on internet telling it to you(I guess we're still random but there are lots of us), but it seems to be a consensus that this is a serious crime and both the school and police should be involved.  Abuse of any kind is heinous regardless of the emotional state of the other person; one should have learned to control themselves and their actions by this point.

Now, one factor that not everyone here is considering is which country this story is taking place. The answers and comments here are certainly relevant for at least North America and Western Europe (and surely other places that I don't know as well), but might not be appropriate in other places. For example, in some North-African countries, there is a history of women getting in serious trouble for reporting harassment to the police.

@keyswitch You worry about the other person entirely too much. It speaks positively about your character that you do so, but it's way past that at this point. The net effect of what that person has done to you is to take a year away from your life. Think about it. It's like if you had been jailed. If someone tells you that you can't leave "until", that's illegal arrest or kidnapping.

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


text:
What should be my response for a rebuttal on double blind citing my own work as "similar"
Case in Hand:
I submitted a paper to a Q1 Conference (I'm in CS, so conferences have a strict baseline for us) and recently got it back for a rebuttal that I need to submit in 6 days.
The issue is R2 cited my own poster published last December in the review saying "The evaluation section is very similar to this". This should exactly be the case, because this is the Full Paper for that poster, which I submitted to this conference.
Before submitting I had inquired with the conference chair if a prior poster abstract submission (2 pages including references) would be a problem when submitting the full paper, and got no objection from them (in writing in email).
So I am moderately confident I can at least alleviate R2's concern about the reason for the "similarity", but I am at a loss for how to do that **without breaking the double-blind **.
Does anyone have any idea about what should be done in a similar situation?
PS: The submission system had no way for me to disclose a prior poster in it. And of course I did not cite my own poster for the exact same full paper.

It is the conference committee that has the responsibility for maintaining "double blind" rules, not yours. Your rebuttal is to the editor, not directly to the reviewers.
Say what you must, cordially of course.
But, you could have cited your own work in a double blind review situation. That isn't an issue. If the rules are really enforced such a citation is just to a named author for a specific work, not "this author". In such cases, for review, cite your work by name of author(s) just as you would the work of another.
The editor of a journal and the conference committee aren't "blind" to submitters. Only the reviewers are and the committee can limit what the reviewer sees from your rebuttal.

I do not think this fully answers the question. The previous cannot just be cited. The paper is the expansion of the poster, not just citing it. I guess the author needs to break the double blind and/or ask the chairs what to do. Typically, in double-blind, reviewers are discouraged from googling the author's work (to not find arXiv papers breaking the d-b), so the reviewers may be partly to blame here. If the chairs are not helpful, maybe an apologetic "I am afraid the reviewer found the poster of which the present paper is an expansion, as permitted by submission guidelines.", sth like th

@CaptainEmacs A paper is not a poster.  This may be borderline salami-slicing, but the poster is a distinct "publication", which is expanded into a the paper being submitted now.  It should be possible to cite the poster.  In mathematics, there is a tradition of authors announcing results (one or two paragraphs), and publishing the full paper later.  Both the original announcement and the final paper can be cited separately.  Unless CS is very different from the rest of academia, I don't see why something similar doesn't apply here, too.

@XanderHenderson It's not exactly salami slicing. It is quite accepted to have preliminary work published as poster, and then expanded to journal level. This is, at the end not really 2 publications, but at the end of the process, just one; people would refer only to the second, more mature one. I guess this practice is more common in CS with faster development and turnaround times.

@CaptainEmacs Yeah, it sounds like CS is very different from the rest of academia.  In math, the poster would be one "publication" (i.e. it would get its own citation), and the paper which is a result of the poster, or a more finalized version of the poster, would be a second publication.