text:
Is this plagiarism or just a bad practice?
When I first began applying correct citations and referencing, I followed methods such as placing a citation at the end of the paragraph if I am paraphrasing for one person and not following a citation for each sentence. For example:

One can use this website to write about various activities and interests such as music, art, science, etc... and one can also get in touch with the founder. However, to use the website, a person has to register and pay a fee. The website founder is known for his IT expertise. More people are joining nowadays than ever (Smith 2010, pp. 1-2) and those people can be great contributors to the website. Contribution is an important aspect of online communities (John 2014, p. 5).

Now I am reading about how each one complete sentence should be cited instead, and by using lead-ins to help the readers. In my above example, I want my readers to understand that the first 4 lines are Smith's ideas and the last 2 lines (from 'and those people') are John's ones. Now I realize that such a practice is a poor one as it may confuse the readers.
It should be something like (using lead-ins or ibid. for more readability, of course):

One can use this website to write about various activities and interests such as music, art, science, etc... and one can also get in touch with the founder (Smith 2010, pp. 1-2). However, to use the website, a person has to register and pay a fee (Smith 2010, pp. 1-2). The website founder is known for his IT expertise (Smith 2010, pp. 1-2). More people are joining nowadays than ever (Smith 2010, pp. 1-2) and those people can be great contributors to the website (John 2014, p. 5). Contribution is an important aspect of online communities (John 2014, p. 5).

My question: Can what I did in the past be considered as plagiarism (as in not making it clear whose ideas are for whom (like readers may think that unreferenced sentences are mine) crediting wrong persons, etc...) or just a bad style of writing? (Field is business and using, obviously, author-date system)

Not sure about your local citing conventions, but in Germany you'd wrap exact quotations in double quotes, which makes beginning and end of the quote clear.

"One can use ... than ever" (Smith 2010, pp. 1-2) and "those people ... communities" (John 2014, p. 5)

Citing every single sentence would only be required if they were spread all over different pages of the source ... which could make putting them next to each other a bit questionable.
That being said, by omitting the delimiters it is not clear where your original content ends and quoted content begins. So you're leaving the judgement open to the reader. While you should be fine with a "benevolent" reader, you could run afoul of somebody out to make trouble for you.
If you paraphrase, it would be customary to lead with something like

According to Smith one can use ... that ever" (cf. Smith 2010, pp. 1-2), and John affirms that those people ... communities (John 2014, p. 5).

Again, the leader and the source nicely wrap the outside content.

Thanks for the answer but I am not asking about direct/double quotes here.

@R.AS. I believe you are asking about double quotes here. This answer is correct, use quotes when you reproduce text verbatim.

@CapeCode not really. I am not asking about verbatim and exact quotations here. In the example I've given above, I want the readers to know that the first 4 lines are paraphrased words of Smith. See the edit for clarification.

@Stefan Schmiedl Yes and after your 2nd edit, that's what I am asking for. I realized how it should be done correctly.  My question now: can what I did before considered as plagiarism?

As I said: by omitting "clear borders", you've left it to the reader/plagiarism hunter.

I would say what you've done in the past is probably acceptable, with one caveat. According to the Bodleian Libraries' Guide to Referencing and Citations, page 23, you should acknowledge the source of the material you're paraphrasing (as was just done, for example).
Paraphrasing though, is only okay when you understand the material. Paraphrasing is putting things into your own words. Paraphrasing is NOT copying a block of text and changing a few words. In other words, the idea will be the same; the style will be your own.
As long as you've been on the right side of the line drawn in the in the latter paragraph, you're covered. I would still give that entire guide a read though, whether or not it quite matches one you've been told to use is iffy, but the general points are still valid.

Welcome to SE! You have here a good answer, but it would be better if, instead of including the citation in parentheses, you used the Markdown formatting to have a hyperlink.

Not once did I ever downgrade a student's paper for over-citation. Conversely, quite a few failed assignments for shorting citations. With more severe cases I submitted them to the academic review board for disciplinary action for plagiarism.
Citations are easier to keep track and manage now with software like Endnote and there are tools built into modern word processors. Get into a habit of citing all the time and you'll do yourself huge favors.
My rule in class was always, if it has quotes around it -- cite it. If it doesn't have quotes and the thought did not originate entirely within the confines of your brain, cite it. Everything else I will expect is your own work and analysis.
If one citation source effectively leads to additional citations within that source, but those are cited in the same source by the author and point to secondary or tertiary sources (other/older books and articles by the same or new author) -- my preference is that you track down these additional sources and get the original author's context. Thus, you would ideally cite deepest sources whenever appropriate. I'll refer to this idea as deep-source-citation.

This doesn't really help. The asker is clearly aware that they must cite everything they use and shows plenty enough awareness that we can assume they know that that copy-pasting book chapters is wrong. They're already citing so they know how easy or hard it is. The question is whether every single sentence should contain all citations arising in that sentence.

@DavidRicherby you are absolutely correct.  Late night irritability doesn't really add much to the discussion.  I've edited my answer to clean up the inflammatory rhetoric and added my preference towards deep-source-citation which, I believe, speaks more to the topic at hand.  In other words, sources cited within sources -- preferably the student will follow that chain to the deeper source and cite it directly where appropriate.  This has several benefits in that you are effectively getting a greater depth of context, while double-checking the highest author's logical analysis and summation.

The tone's much better but this still doesn't answer the actual question at hand.


text:
When during the application process should a candidate mention that their spouse is also looking for a job
When during the application process should a candidate say that their spouse is also looking for a job?
The issue of academic spouses who want to find employment close enough to live together is colloquially called the "two body problem", and it is a perpetual challenge for job applicants.
The italicized question came up in a recent comment thread on this site, and I realized there is no post on Academia.SE about it. So I am making one.
I have seen many answers to the question, which usually fall between two extremes:

Don't mention your spouse in any way until you have a job offer, then bring up the question of a job for your spouse. Sometimes the advice even recommends taking off wedding rings during interviews.
Mention the spouse immediately in your application cover letter.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, certainly, depending on the specific circumstances of the applicant and school being applied to.
Because many people, like me, have a perspective limited by their own life experience and the schools they have worked at, I expect that there should be many different answers to the question, expressing different perspectives. I think that collection of answers would provide an extremely useful resource for job applicants.
In the thread I linked, another user left a comment:

... I'd particularly be interested in seeing answers supported by data, as there seem to be a wide range of opinions, each supported by apparently convincing logical reasons and/or anecdotes.

I don't want to limit answers here to ones based on data, but answers that do include broad data would be particularly welcome.
This kind of question has also been asked on MathOverflow.

related, but not exactly the same question; http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/13717/7921

I'd mention it during an on-campus interview.
In my department, we don't factor "the two-body problem" into an initial evaluation (i.e., do we bring someone for an on-campus interview). So it's up to you about mentioning it in a cover letter or not. I don't think I have ever read that in a cover letter in chemistry, though.
During an on-campus interview, sometimes it comes up, and sometimes it does not. Keep in mind that usually, the department cannot ask. We prefer if it comes up, so that we can work on solving the problem at the same time we make an offer.
When we decide about who gets an offer, the two-body problem doesn't factor into the decision at all.
Why? Well, for one, we want the best person we can get. For another, almost all of our candidates have a two-body problem of some sort. Sometimes, it's another academic job. In other cases, the spouse is a doctor, or a lawyer, or another scientist or ...
Suffice to say, once we make an offer, we're trying to do the best to get the candidate to come, and that includes making sure a significant other would be happy here.
I'll be honest. We're much happier if we know there's a two-body problem (of any type) before we make the offer (i.e. during the on-campus interview), so that we can start working on finding another position. As I said, we want you to come. Sometimes, we don't find out until after we extend the offer, but that just makes our job more difficult because we have much less time.

I'm not sure about hard data. We can probably estimate the % of interviewed candidates that have significant others. My best guess is >75%.

If you have two equally ranked candidates -- one who is a singleton and one who is a two-bodyer, wouldn't the knowledge of the latter influence your decision? I find it hard to imagine that it wouldn't.

@RoboKaren It's never come up in our discussions honestly. I'm not actually sure how it would work. On the one hand, it's tricky to handle a two-body situation. On the other hand, we've done pretty well, and that obviously gives you a leg up in getting a candidate to come and to stay.

I can see both arguments going back and forth in discussion. Honestly, in many searches now, that situation hasn't happened, either because there is some level of difference between candidates, and because so many candidates have a significant other.

If your partner is looking for a job in some non academic field, then the university might be able to help out by giving you information about employment opportunities for the area and even offering the services of a career counselor, but it's unlikely that the university can do anything directly to ensure that your partner gets a job.
So I'll assume that you are talking about a situation in which your partner is looking for an academic position or perhaps you're in a situation where you and your partner would like to share a single position.
Many universities have spousal hiring policies that lay out what the university is willing to do in these situations.  The most generous of these policies provide money to help create a position for the trailing spouse in the same academic department or in another academic department.  This can be a huge win for that other department if the position wasn't otherwise going to exist.  Thus there is some incentive to hire in this situation.  Other policies are much more vague and aren't much more than an assurance that the spouse will be considered for some kind of employment.  You should check to see if the university has such a policy and decide for yourself whether the policy is flexible enough to deal with your situation.
If there is no spousal hiring policy then this may be because the university simply isn't interested in hiring couples or it may be because these situations are handled on a case by case basis.
My advice is that if you would be unwilling to accept a position unless your spouse is hired then I would reveal the information early in the process whether or not the university has a policy.  It's true that you might be passed over because of this, but if neither party is willing to give this up, there's no point in playing the game.  If the university is willing to deal with this, then they'll have plenty of time to respond by e.g. interviewing the spouse.  On the other hand, if you wait until after an offer has been made to you, then you'll either be told "no", or the process of negotiating the spousal hire will start late and take a long time to complete.
If you would be willing (or might be willing only if you have no other offers) to take a position without your spouse being hired, then you might withhold this information until an on-campus interview or even until you've received an offer.  This eliminates the risk that you'll be passed over because of your interest in a spousal hire.  Realize that when you do finally reveal the information and ask to negotiate a spousal hire you'll be asking for a lot, and it's likely that the university will take a tough position in negotiating all aspect of your hiring.  In many cases there will be other qualified applicants for the position, so it's pretty easy for the university to just say "no" and tell you to take their offer or leave it on the table.

I've been at both a small-liberal arts as well as a research I university. I would not mention it at either at any stage until an offer. The reason for this is this: provosts usually only give departments one slot at a time -- asking for a spousal hire requires getting an additional slot from the provost -- i.e., a lot of lobbying work and justification for the position. In order to commit to this, we have to be 100% sure that you are the person we want (and that we or another department wants your spouse) in order to make that effort.
We really won't know that we want to make that effort until after we've met you for the on-campus visit. Often a candidate just 'clicks' and we are then fully committed to getting them whatever they need to be happy on campus. But until then, the top ranked candidates are just sheets of paper and the knowledge that resources for additional faculty slots are very tight may be enough to push you off the bottom of the short-list. This is of course unfair and discriminatory, which is why it's illegal (in the USA) for us as the hiring body to ask you whether or not you have a spouse.
The one case where I would mention it is if you and your spouse are applying to the university at the same time in different departments/searches or at a different ranked search. In that case, there's really no hiding it and it's  not necessarily a zero sum game. In addition, small liberal arts colleges know that their flexibility with spouses (and general higher quality of family life) is a selling point to married couples, so you may have more flexibility with them.
Nota bene: The same goes for any other requests you might have -- for example, that you'd want a teaching release the first year, that you have a disability, that you will need maternity leave, or that you won't touch a salary less than US$150,000, etc. etc. Make all these requests after you've been made the offer. Especially in the case of protected categories (pregnancy/disability), they cannot withdraw the offer without exposing themselves  legally.
tl;dr: Don't mention you have a spouse until the department has committed to you as the top candidate and is willing to go to bat for the additional resources that will make you a happy scholar.

I can't speak for all academic positions, but some schools (including mine) have explicit programs from the Provost's office to handle salary and startup expenses for a spouse. That is, resources are created to help land two-academic couples.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I have been asked about a rumor of a collegue, what should I do?
A colleague of mine (C1) from other University (U1) has asked me, by email, if another colleague (C2) from my University (U2) is moving from U2 to U1.
Should I tell to C2 about that rumor?
Or should I answer to C1 that I have no clue?
Of course, I do not have any idea of C2's plans but I have a closer relationship with him.

Your options are not mutually exclusive.

You should gave said straight off : what rumour... But now is too late - whatever you say your colleague will think you knew and just did not want to say...

Such info could mean a lot of money if your advisor is negotiating with both universities, so I'd tell him. To your friend, just be honest unless your advisor has asked you to deny it.

How your colleague asked? by email?

I feel this question is a better fit for Interpersonal Skills SE/

i think that's better suited to Interpersonal Skills SE or Workplace SE

downvoted because we don't know what you want to happen

The question was easier to read before you switched to the confusing {C,U}{1,2} labels.

If someone asks you in person: I would recommend you to say to your colleague that you have no clue about what he is talking about, immediately - even if you know your supervisor's plan.
If someone asks you by email:
In this case it is easier. Just ignore it.
Some supervisors share a lot of things with their students and I think that is better to assume everything as private.
Since this rumour could have some professional consequence to your supervisor, I would alert him about that too.

Given the common expression, "discretion is the better part of valor," I'd lean toward saying nothing. The worst that can happen is that you've said nothing useful.

@aeismail well, if his colleague asked by email he can just ignore it. But if it is face-to-face he has to say something.

As it is an email,  would you ignore it? Or would you talk with your supervisor?

I would do both. Let your supervisor know about this rumour.

The options you have presented are not exhaustive.  If you do not wish to participate in the rumor mill, or disclose personal plans of a colleague, you could simply tell your colleague (C1) that you'd like to help, but you are nor at liberty to discuss the employment arrangements of your colleagues.  Lying about things you know is generally a bad practice.

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


text:
What is the point in publishing a paper in a workshop rather than in a conference?
At first glance seems more interesting to submit your work to a conference, but a lot of people are still interested in workshops.
Which is their motivation?
I have also heard that to use your new material in a workshop paper is "a waste". How true is that?
Which are your criteria to choose your paper target?
Thank you.

Presumably the workshop has formally published proceedings? If not, then you can present work at a workshop and, subsequently, formally publish at a conference.

In my research area (software engineering), points why people submit to workshops include the following:
Lower barrier for acceptance: Some works are inherently hard to get accepted at top-notch venues, for example, because they are hard to evaluate properly. A paper that was rejected multiple times at higher-level venues might eventually end up at a workshop, so that the authors can still make a (albeit less valuable) publication out of it.
Publication strategies: Some researchers actively try to build a prolific track record of many small (including workshop-level) publications, rather than a few big ones. While it's debatable whether such strategy is best for advancing science, and even for convincing a selection committee, there are certainly some associated benefits, for example, plenty of opportunity for self-citation. Strategic publications may also be used to show an association between two authors (to convince a grant committee that they can work together well enough to write a paper), or to establish an association between the authors and the topic (to show a grant committee that they have some early work in the field).
Getting feedback: Sometimes, people have a nice idea, but are stuck in an early stage of implementing this idea. Workshops are a perfect opportunity for gathering feedback, since they (i) are designed to enable a focused discussion (small audience, specific focus), (ii) usually have a faster review cycle than conferences, and (iii) sometimes allow for short discussion or problem statement papers.
Opportunity to visit the host conference: Workshops are usually embedded into the ecosystem of a larger host conference or conference series. When a researcher wants to visit the host conference, but didn't get a paper accepted there, a workshop paper can be their entry ticket. (It's usually easier to get a conference trip funded if you have a paper at the conference or one of its workshops.)
Warm-up publishing: When joining a new field, a group of authors might want to get accustomed to the associated community to understand their culture, values and standards. Workshops are particularly suitable for this purpose due to high acceptance rates, interactive formats and the opportunity to visit the host conference.

A nice and complete list of very valid points.

Workshops are specialized and you can meet the "gurus" in your field. This is important for networking and also for very good feedback/discussions etc. Notice also that some workshops (at least in TCS) are at least as highly ranked as high ranked and prestigious conferences.
Basically, at least from the quality point of view, it does not mater a priori is a venue is classified as Symposium, Conference or Workshop. It depends on the quality of papers in attracts and what is your goal. Do you want your work to be visible in the specialized community? Or to be put in a wider spectrum?
Personally if given the choice between two equally ranked venues, one being specialized and the other being general, I would prefer the former for the reasons I outlined above. This also guarantees better visibility (because at the end of the day, only people close to your area would care about the result unless is really some huge breakthrough).

+1 for only people close to your area would care about the result unless is really some huge breakthrough

Notice also that some workshops (at least in TCS) are at least as highly ranked as high ranked and prestigious conferences. — Those workshops aren't workshops per se; they're conferences with the word "Workshop" in the title.

I would like to add that, in some (smaller) fields in computer science, the major conferences are small and not numerous, so they can't accept a lot of papers, and thus the barriers to acceptance is high. Sometimes very good work do not get accepted to the major conferences because, perhaps, they did not target a "general" audience adequately. Also, the conferences have very long review periods and it is hard to find a time to submit papers except for a few times a year.　However, that is not exactly how research works.
In this case, it is very important to have workshops that can accept high quality papers (perhaps with a smaller target audience) under shorter review periods. For example, the International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP) is a rather small conference, and it accepted around 40 papers this year. However, it is simply not true that people in the field of functional programming produce only 40 pieces of good research per year. In this case, a lot of them are submitted to and published in the proceedings of workshops affiliated with ICFP. A lot of good and influential papers have come from the workshops indeed.

I'm sure this is extremely dependent on field and perhaps specialization within that field.  To give you an example, in Computer Science, there are lots of workshops, of varying competitiveness.  Within the systems discipline of CS, most major conferences have at least one workshop that can be viewed as a "feeder": people publish early work, which appear formally as proceedings, but which are much shorter than conference papers.  For instance, most limit papers to 5 pages, while conferences might be 12-14.   So people publish the early work in the workshop, then expand on it for the major conference.  The workshops are smaller (usually no more than about 100 attendees) and more interactive, providing lots of useful feedback.
Over the years the set of workshops on Hot topics in XXX has jumped from a couple (like Hot Chips and then Hot Operating Systems - HotOS) to dozens.  A few are standalone, like HotOS, which even limits the attendees to those who have position papers accepted.  Many are tied to a conference.  A good example is the USENIX Hot Topics on Storage (HotStorage), which has taken place before the broader Annual Technical Conference each summer and often leads to longer papers submitted to USENIX File and Storage Technologies in the fall.
In other words, in some disciplines it's expected and useful to publish early work in a workshop and later work in a conference.  Judging from other comments, there may be other fields where it's only OK if the workshop has no formal proceedings.

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

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


text:
DFG Eigene Stelle -- how many years after your PhD defense can you apply and/or expect to get this?
Apologies if I have missed this information somewhere. I have an offer to apply for an "Eigene Stelle" (Translation in English: Own position) with a research institution in Germany. I defended my PhD in Dec 2022. I am currently in a 2-year postdoc. Ideally, I would start the Eigene Stelle position in Dec 2024. Can I apply for this two years out? If so, does it privilege recent PhDs (so perhaps to have a chance I should apply earlier and try to defer a few months....)
Any advice appreciated

It is typically the job of your current supervisor to coach you on that. Admittedly, not all are equally good at that, and not all recognize their responsibility to junior personnel. In that case you probably get some coaching from your thesis supervisor. This kind of personal coaching is way more valuable than short messages from random people on the internet.

I think you can defer DFG funding for a bit, but I'm not sure how much. Therefore, you should also try to find out what the terms of your current position are. Can you "quit" early and change to your own funding earlier if it's granted before the end of your postdoc? In case the decision on "Eigene Stelle" takes longer than expected, would you get more than two years if you change your contract to less hours per week?

The oldest person I know who benefited from a grant including "Eigene Stelle" was well in her forties. Her PhD defense must have been 15 to 20 years in the past. I think it is more important to explain why the probability of a successful project strongly depends on you and your skills. Could you be replaced by a (much cheaper) PhD student?

It is worth noting that the question pertains to Germany.
Submitting a proposal to the German Research Foundation (DFG) can be done at any time after completing a PhD. However, the likelihood of success varies. DFG tends to be more lenient with first-time submissions and it is recommended to explicitly mention this in the proposal. Keep in mind that writing DFG proposals is different from writing papers. In Germany, it is common for newly graduated PhDs to collaborate with their professors on proposal submissions, with the professor providing feedback and potentially serving as the Principal Investigator if the proposal is accepted. To increase your chances of success, it is helpful to have experience with proposal writing, a strong publication record on the topic of the proposal, and (preferably) guidance from an experienced professor.
I find Emmy Noether-Programm more suitable for early career scientists (keep in mind that it is quite competitive).


text:
What is a good amount of time to wait to check up on a recommender after the initial request?
So, about a month ago, I sent three requests for letters of recommendation. Since then, two of them have finished their letters and one (I imagine) is quite busy and told me he probably won't be able to get to the letter for another two weeks [about a week prior to the application deadline], and the application is due on January 1 [which is a bit less than a month from now].
Would it be wise to send a reminder e-mail to him, and if so, how long should I wait?
[Please feel free to edit the title; I realize it's not very clear.]

I would definitely not contact him until the week before the week he said he could get to the recommendation letter. Anything earlier could just lead to the same answer as before. I wouldn't stress it too much, however. My recommenders this year submitted their letters within the last two weeks of the deadline. One of them submitted it two days before the Thanksgiving break (at the end of which, some applications were already due).

authors: Ольга Демидова


text:
Second PhD vs PostDoc - Math vs Theoretical Physics
I'm about to complete my PhD in mathematics. I've been working with Group theory (Representations). Besides the PhD I also did a master's in theoretical physics (I took much more courses than necessary to earn the degree and all of them were in advanced level, and did really well). The thing is: I would like to work in Theoretical Physics, and I'd like to use my Math background and apply it to theoretical physics. I love both subjects and I think they are like brothers in a sense. So my question is:
1) Should I apply for a second PhD (In physics)? For me it would be the worst option, since I'd have to spent a lot of time in things that I already know, and I don't see the point of writing another thesis. I heard that in Europe some universities "hire" PhD students as Research Assistants, so maybe this wouldn't be so bad. What you think?
2) Apply for a PostDoc position in theoretical physics? This is the best option in my opnion, but I don't know if physics departments welcomes mathematicians applying for PostDocs positions, Do they?
Observe that this question is not answered in another post, my question is specific to math/theoretical physics research. Besides I'm not thinking in getting a second PhD to "learn" physics, I am asking about what is more reasonable when considering to do research both in math and in physics.

Doing a second PhD is close to useless compared to spending your time in any other way. Receiving a PhD is a testament to your ability to do independent research. Obtaining one shows you can do that, obtaining a second one doesn't really add anything.

@MarcClaesen: My PhD in mathematics doesn't testify to my ability to do independent research in experimental biology, or in history, because the idea of what constitutes research, or at a more fundamental level, what constitutes truth or knowledge, is vastly different in the different fields.  (But IMHO math and theoretical physics are close enough.)

Anyone will hire you provided you can convince them you are better than the other candidates. You already have a PhD in Maths, you have to show them you have the skills and knowledge to complement their baggage and help solve their problems.
In the Mathematical Physics department in my undergrad university (Spain), there is at least one postdoc that is mathematician with a PhD in Economy, and two physicist readerers that works in Applied Mathematics.


text:
Should one cite a dictionary for every technical term?
The paper I am working on contains many medical terms -- particularly pathologies -- to which I write the description of each one along with related literature for their causes in a table. For this purpose, I refer a couple of medical dictionaries.

Should I cite each term with appropriate dictionary I am using separately next to each definition of the term? I believe this would overcrowd my reference section.

In some cases, I merge and use multiple dictionary terms to phrase my own description of the term.

Hence would it be better to just have a single reference to the dictionaries such as

The following medical dictionaries are referred for appropriate terminology: [15,16,24].

at a footnote or at the bottom of the table?

Should one cite a dictionary at all (for a survey paper)?

I don't know about medical science, but in (my area of) mathematics, I would not cite for entirely standard definitions (even the less common ones I actually do explain). I might refer to one standard reference or another in the introductory/preliminary section -- but only for the convenience of the reader, not actually quoting or paraphrasing it.

This does not appear to be using the tag [tag:survey-research] in the way it was intended. (You have already included the tag [tag:review-article], which I gather is what you meant.)

Thank you for the suggestion, @Susan. I've made the necessary edit to the tag list.

It depends on your target audience. If they are familiar with that medical topic, then it's not necessary.
Even if they are not familiar, citing dictionary is an inconvenient way to do it because i) the readers need to stop reading and get that dictionary, ii) most people who are not familiar with medical terms probably would not have easy access to a medical dictionary. For this reason, I will recommend having a glossary list/table or providing minimal but sufficient in-text definition. The list/table method is better for mixed audience so that the more technically inclined can read on without any problem; the in-text definition method is more suitable for generally less technically inclined audience.
I don't think you need to refer down to the page number and have multiple citations when you cite them. Dictionary is built in a way that you can find the word without page number. And if you use a list/table, then a combination of superscript symbol and a blanket citation in the footnote is also a convenient to deal with it.
In any case, seek out other similar reports or talk to the editor on how to deal with your problem. They would reveal perhaps the most common or best practices.


text:
On the originality of a master's thesis topic
While choosing a master's thesis topic to write about, I usually find that it's pretty rare to find something 'totally original', I mean, is it a requirement?
I have decided what I want to write about and, while searching the net for something similar, it turned out that my topic isn't too original after all, however what makes mine 'new' is 1) a new country, 2) the chosen industry and 3) the chosen sample. Is this acceptable?
Usually, how common for one to come up with and write something totally original (e.g. That has never been done before in any context)?
EDIT: I also would like to add that, to make sure that my topic has never been done before in my chosen country and industry, I've heavily searched the net. Is this enough? I mean, I don't want to do a study and later on discover that some people have done it before exactly in the same manner as mine (country, industry, etc...) for either the study was done 1) at some obscure university or 2) simply was never published and kept in the library of a particular university. What do people usually do in such cases?

Which country? I know cases on both sides, depending on country/field...

Short answers: it's a requirement of sorts, it's probably acceptable (with caveats), mostly, assuming you have covered major databases and/or Google Scholar.
Long answers: One of the requirements for academic research, particularly in the context of dissertations, is to contribute to existing research. This can mean coming up with a new approach to solve a particular problem, or a new theory or idea. But it can also mean looking at a topic from a slightly different angle, or focussing on a different aspect.
Not all research (#notallstudies) has to be new and exciting. Trying to replicate and thereby confirm existing research is entirely valid and acceptable. However, the current publication process favours developing new studies and approaches over replication studies. A perceived lack of originality may therefore hamper your publication chances, which is problematic in itself. Whether this is an issue for you depends on your future career plans and choices.
Whether your slightly adjusted topic will be accepted also depends on how plausible it is that a different region / industry / sample composition would bring different results than the original study. For example, if you're looking at topics that are likely to be influenced by cultural differences / class / education background / or similar, you can reasonably expect that looking at a different country or a different sector may yield new information. However, there will be other factors where it would seem implausible that region or industry would have any bearing on them, e.g. left-/right-handedness, general IQ, neuroticism scores etc.
In checking for existing research you should make sure to cover relevant journals and databases in the fields. You're not expected to research the library of any university, but to cover relevant publications.
Lastly, a few caveats:

Check your university's requirements. Whatever I and other people tell you will be based on our experiences in particular contexts and institutions. Your institution's guidelines may differ.
Answers to your questions may also differ between subjects. My answer is based on experiences in psychology / social science research, particularly work and employment.

'not very' concerning which question of mine? I do think that the choice of a new country (because of our different culture) will definitely refresh the topic, however what if I arrive with the same results? Can this still be considered valid? My instructor found no issues at all when I told her about the presence of some related studies to the topic... Yes, my topic is in marketing; so I am doing a new empirical study based on a topic that has been (not so much though) tested before in different countries/industries. I've edited my question by the way.

'Not very' refers to your original third question, how common it is that a thesis contains something entirely new and original. It won't make a difference if you find the same results as long as your initial question is considered valid. After all, you first have to do the research to find out whether the situation in a new country is the same or different.

Note that a masters thesis often isn't subject to the same originality standards that would be required of a PhD thesis or a peer-reviewed article.  In some cases, exposition of existing work is completely acceptable for a masters thesis.

@NateEldredge but that's the issue, it's so rare to find something completely new and not written about in the literature before. My chosen topic was even chosen while I was brainstorming before surfing the web and knowing that it has been done before in different countries/industries. So in my case, can it still be called 'exposition of existing work'?


text:
On citing common knowledge and giving credit to the 'right' authors
Suppose that I am reading a marketing book and, while reading a specific chapter, I find like there are 10 footnotes with most of them related to specific examples or specific numbers; in other words, most of the information presented in the chapter are not cited and, judging by the context and contents, such information do not appear to be 'invented' by the author(s) of the book (not primary data). In that case, they could just be common knowledge information related to the field of marketing and business (example: purpose of marketing, strategic analysis, financial measures, etc...)
Since 'when in doubt, always cite', if I want to write about information taken from such book, is it bad if I just cite the author(s) of the book since I am taken the information from their book? To clarify, I am worried that I could be 'giving credit' to people who did NOT come up with such information presented in their book and therefore, I should not cite since it's common knowledge or whatever.

Possible duplicate of http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2192/on-citing-common-knowledge-statements?rq=1

I've read this before I posted my question, the question isn't 100% in the same context as mine...

First, the definition of "common knowledge" and I think this answer by Ben Norris from the post that Stephan Branczyk posted elucidated that pretty well (https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/2196):

If the statement/concept/idea that you think you want to cite is covered (without citation) in the introductory undergraduate textbook(s) on the subject, then it is likely common knowledge in the field.

So next step is to search more than one sources about that specific examples or specific numbers. If that book is the only source that came up with that example/number then you can cite from that author(s). You give credit from where you found the information. It is better to cite than not and might trouble you later on since it will give an impression that those numbers/examples are from your own findings (and which someone might cite that example from you). Because again, 'when in doubt, always cite'.

The proper way is to give an indirect or secondary citation: "Smith (as cited by Jones, 2010) is said to have found the meaning of life (2002)." See one of the APA reference pages http://alliant.libguides.com/content.php?pid=268617&sid=2956256. APA suggests using these sparingly. I concur.

Thanks for the answer but it doesn't answer my question. I am well aware of the way and the circumstances behind using secondary citations. But again, it's not what I have asked for.

If you didn't have to do any research to find the information (and can honestly say that), then it is common knowledge. But why not follow the references that the author gives in order to find the source? Of course, you can cite the author of the book that you read, you found it there. But do you want to cite an author who does not give sources for his work? Seems non-scientific to me.

That's my point, there are no sources for such information, the available sources are only for specific examples and/or numbers. But we're talking about major worldwide well-known authors, that's why I am assuming that such information are assumed to be common knowledge in my field (even if they are detailed).


text:
On discussing empirical studies
Usually, empirical studies are built on theoretical backgrounds. When I am writing on a specific subject and would like to cite an empirical study which has been done on this subject and discuss its results. Can I simply cite the study and discuss its findings WITHOUT citing the studies which formed the theoretical background of the empirical act?
For example, assume that study X measures the impact of social media use on teens. X states that, before empirically testing the effects, 'we relied on study 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to form our 10 statements' (effects). 'Findings revealed that the top 3 effects were effect A, B and C'.
When discussing the results, can I simply say that the study X found that the top 3 effects of social media are A, B and C (X 2010, p. 20). Am I obligated to add that the effect A was drawn from study 1, effect B from study 2, etc... you get the idea.

Anyone on this question?

If the studies used in study X are relevant for the  discussion you are writing - and not just because the author of study X cited them, you should cite them individually.
However, as you are writing  a academic text, you should at least put some effort into contextualising methodology of other stories. The extend of this would of course depend on the overall relevance of study X to the main argument of your own paper.
Citing a work can mean two things:

a merely mechanical notice saying you have read a particular text and used some idea and/or wording from it
a complex statement on the orientation of your research, for example what research tradition, school or network you follow

So if you would like to quote your study X (as it is nicknamed in the question) simply for referencing a source on a statement, it would be enough to quote study X and not the underlying works.
However, if the underlying works of study X are important in the argumentation where you cite them in - for example in a discussion - it would be a good thing to show you have read and reflected on the literature the study X is based on.


text:
Should one credit the paper that referred him to primary sources?
Let's assume that I stumble upon a paper by author X where he cites ideas of A, B and C. Now I know about the rules of secondary sources and how I should cite them in case I haven't taken a look at the primary sources. But if I do track down the primary sources by myself and cite them instead, should I, somehow, credit author X for referring me to those ideas?
Usually when doing a review of literature, I open like 10 studies, 'harvest' a few ideas and primary sources from each and track them down. Is this a good practice? I'd still cite, if required, the 10 studies for their own information (e.g. empirical results).
EDIT: the part which may be unique is: Assume there are 20 citations in a paper. Should one feel unethical for 'harvesting' like 5-8 citations and tracking their original source without citing the intermediary source? It just feels like 'copying' since the intermediary paper 'led' one to these 5-8 citations.

Edited to include the part which I would like an answer for...


text:
How is a research direction determined between a graduate student and their advisor?
My question applies to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math disciplines (STEM).
Q: By what process does a graduate student determine his or her research direction?
(Assume that the graduate student is in the first year and has no previous publications with this supervisor.)
I can imagine several scenarios:

The graduate student proposes a research topic and then their
supervisor evaluates it for originality and feasibility. In this scenario, the graduate student has the foresight to know what research directions are promising and appropriate.
The graduate student performs an extensive
literature review. In this process, the student finds a challenging and/or interesting problem. (I am not sure how much effort this requires. I also don't know how to identify a problem as "interesting" or "challenging".)
The supervisor comes up with an interesting research problem or question and then presents it to the graduate student. (This appears to be a common pattern, given the plethora of complaints that I see on-line about uninteresting research.)

I would especially like to see responses from professors who are supervisors and also from graduate students.

Why the downvote?

Any of the scenarios you describe can happen, in practice. (I am in the United States; this may differ in other countries.) It depends on the student's interests and abilities, the advisor's interests and advising style, how broad advisor's interests are, whether the advisor has funding for a particular project and needs a student to work on that problem, and many other factors.
All three have happened within my own research group. (Another possibility that happened in my research group that you haven't mentioned: student initiates a collaboration with another researcher, who proposes a topic, and involves the advisor in the project as well.)
Actually, the scenarios you describe are not discrete scenarios, but a spectrum from "most student-driven" to "most advisor-driven." Some points on the spectrum include:

Student enters grad school with a topic in mind that's judged acceptable by advisor, and proceeds with that topic.
Student enters grad school with a topic in mind, that evolves and changes following advice from advisor.
Student enters grad school with a general idea and, together with guidance from advisor and extensive reading of literature, shapes it into a topic.
Student enters grad school without idea, advisor suggests general direction, and upon extensive reading and with guidance from advisor, student shapes it into a topic.
Advisor hands student idea, and student proceeds to execute idea. Of course, this is a PhD, so as student works on the topic, the student's mastery of the specific research will most probably come to exceed the advisor's, even though advisor originally proposed the idea.

Other scenarios include: student enters grad school with idea in mind and then changes directions completely in middle, student enters grad school with idea and changes advisors in middle but keeps idea, and many more..

Another one: "Student enters grad school level without a general idea and starts publishing based on opportunities - whatever comes up during work for a funded project, collaborating with colleagues, etc. After two or three years, student and supervisor check for common aspects of the publications so far and thereby define a topic that connects what was done so far and allows for more research along the same lines."

@O.R.Mapper This is a good one. Certainly how I did my PhD.

In addition to your proposals and ff524's answer, another common pattern is
Grad student is employed by a grant / funded project and needs to deliver more or less what the grant promised
At least in Europe, that actually seems to be the predominant mode of topic selection. Most students are externally funded by relatively concrete projects, and not all grants allow students to deviate far from the original plan (even if the plan sometimes is a bit outdated / boring by the time the student works on it, much to the chagrin of both, student and supervisor).
However, as O.R.Mapper correctly states:

In larger departments, this sometimes means there are several openings based on different projects. Topic selection then takes place by choosing the project that is most aligned with the future grad student's interests, or that can most likely be developed into a direction that seems interesting to the prospective grad student.

(that being said, it's not usual that the decision which project to select is entirely up to the grad student)

"not all grants allow students to deviate far from the original plan" - whether the grant allows it in writing, and whether the supervisor tolerates it (or even actively suggests it) can be entirely different.

@O.R.Mapper I think no grant allows you in writing to do something else with the money. However, some are in practice more lenient than others.

Well, some grants/grant applications are more explicit about what the funded project is about than others. Sometimes, one can manage to describe certain aspects vaguely enough to have a lot of leeway even when sticking exactly to what is written in the grant. That is where, to put it exaggeratedly, the bureaucratic dreamworld that requires a precise description of all research results that will be obtained during the 3 years to come, and the scientific reality that each result leads to new, unforeseen ideas that can completely alter the next research steps, meet even in official writing.

One aspect of this just came to my mind that you might want to explicitly mention: In larger departments, this sometimes means there are several openings based on different projects. Topic selection then takes place by choosing the project that is most aligned with the future grad student's interests, or that can most likely be developed into a direction that seems interesting to the prospective grad student.

I believe the best way of finding a topic is if the grad student does not have a fixed idea of the research project, but of his interests and abilities. So when asked about a topic I counter with obvious questions like "What are you interested in? What do you already know? Are there side conditions like funding, limited time?", but also with less obvious ones like "Do you want to work with a computer? Do you prefer doing stuff on your own or learning known things? Abstract or concrete?"
This requires some introspection on the side of the grad student, but thinking about your abilities is sometimes worthwhile. I personally believe that a large part of your perceived improvement over time comes not from getting better, but from learning what you are good at: You become more successful, because you learned to avoid problems that don't fit your working style.

In addition to what has already been said by ff524 and xLeitix, I think it also depends on what you mean by "research direction."
If you're talking about papers and projects to be completed during graduate school, including the dissertation - then yes, any of those processes work. I think it's most commonly a combination for them - for example, earlier in their graduate work students may do more things on suggestion from their advisor, but later in their graduate work they get increasingly creative and have a greater knowledge of the literature, and those are given more free rein to decide projects. Or it may be that certain projects and papers are ideas handed to the student from the PI or from other members of the lab, but other projects are independent ideas from the graduate student themselves.
It also depends on the PI themselves - some are more controlling than others, and many have varied ideas about what the role of a doctoral student is in a lab.
If you are more talking about a general research direction for your career, though, that's an agenda that really should be set by you - the doctoral student. Your advisor is there to guide you, but doing an extensive literature review and developing the foresight to know the gaps and hot areas in the field is what PhD work is all about.
For what it's worth, at the beginning of graduate school I wondered how professors were able to generate enough ideas to keep papers and grants flowing. By the end of graduate school, I myself was overflowing with ideas - I had too many to write papers on, and had to begin a spreadsheet to keep track of them. As time goes on you will learn more about the field, and you will also develop a network of collaborators.

Like any relationship, it really depends on the relationship that you have between you and your supervisor. Some will leave you completely alone to decide, others will guide you step-by-step. And it's a continuous spectrum!


text:
What is the average postdoctoral salary in China?
I got one postdoctoral offer just after completion of my PhD study. I am not sure about the amount of fellowship. I do not have any experience in postdoctoral work. What is the average salary given to postdoc fellow in Wireless Communication Engineering  particularly in China?

Did they say anything about the salary in the postdoctoral offer? If not, you should ask them.

@scaaahu They said about 40K USD.

As far as I know, 40k USD is a quite high salary in China. I don't have stats handy. I'll try to find it for you when I have time. Again, 40k USD is considered high in China. I think you should feel good. Just saw that your field is Wireless Communication Engineering which is a very hot field. I think that's why you get that high salary.

Which part of China? It can be very different....

@Mithun Is the fellowship tax-free?

For me, it was pre-tax. Most of the cases in China, PostDoc is assumed to be a full-time job. Tax is around 20-30% based on your salary.

@Mithun India and China have a tax treaty, which says that Indian researchers who are working in Chinese universities are exempted from the tax. Do you have any idea on this?

@user1659936 I knew about Double taxation. You can search it, however, I didn't aware about tax treaty. You need to pay the tax as a full-time employee, by the way, you can ask the HR for more details, they are in position to give you an updated and accurate information.

that is 22045.13 Chinese Yuan, it is consider OK salary,

According to this news report Low salaries discouraging overseas academics from ChinaDaily USA,

... the average salary across all ranks and universities is roughly 6,000 yuan ($982) a month. That's low compared with the average entry-level salary in Canada of $5,733 and a full professors' $9,485. The average for newly hired faculty members in the US is $4,950.

Hiring postdocs is still a new trend in China. I can't find average postdoc salary yet. Once I see it (it may be in Chinese), I will report it here.
If average salary in the universities is USD$982 per month, I think I cannot say 40k USD per year is low.
Hope this helps.

@Mithun I feel obligated to give you a little more info here. Many professors in China have free housing (the university is the provider). Also, The locals know where to buy cheap stuff, ... etc.. There are many things you will need to find out when you get there. The best advice for you is to contact the department to see if you can get some help when you get there. Also, depending on the location and where you live in China, you may not have much left after your contract expires. Still, 40k USD is a very good offer. To tell you the truth, I am jealous, honestly.

Thanks again. Can I ask you for a little favor, if you have any? Please provide some links from which I can get some idea about taxes. Is there any relaxation of taxes for overseas postdoc fellow? I have already sent a query message to the university Dept.

@Mithun How is income tax calculated for foreigners in China? and When do I start paying income tax in China?. Don't be too scared yet. I know they charge less tax for scholars(I don't know the details). You need to ask the university department. Also, I suggest you to ask a question on Expatriates SE to see if there are experts on this issue. Hope this helps.

@Mithun Actually, I heard much of the salary for scholars are tax free. I don't know how true is this. Their tax laws keep changing. Your furure employer can give you the best advice.

The salaries in China are highly variable. If you work in a big city or a small town, the cost of life and salary can vary a lot. For example, in Shenzhen, the city gives about 15,000$ USD per year without tax to each post-doc, and then the university will add some money to that, as well as the professor in charge, so you will likely never get less than 25,000 USD per year in that city. Besides, a postdoc can rent a cheap apartment at perhaps 20% of the typical rent fee and pay no or low tax. I think that makes the salary comparable to western countries. But it always depends  on the city/univ

I got two postdoc offers in 2017.

Shanghai (I 'accepted' this one) - gross salary 15000 RMB/month; small subsidized apartment (furniture, gas oven, hot water); subsidized food in university cafe; priority in getting a seat in the university bus (something to consider given the long queues); tax 10.50%. My supervisor has reimbursed me round-trip airfare for journey back home (3 trips in a year!).
Shenzhen - 2 year gross salary = 185000 (from university) + 240000 (from Shenzhen govt.) = 17,700 RMB per month. No idea about tax structure. Living cost in Shenzhen is greater than that in Shanghai. I rejected this offer cz I didn't like Shenzhen and the Prof wasn't really well-known (Connections matter a lot in China).

Salaries in Beijing are also good and it is probably the best city in China in terms of experience. However its a challenge to bear the smog there. Some of my friends living in Beijing have developed skin ailments.
There are also some pretty good opportunities in smaller cities. For instance, one of my friends availed an offer in Nanjing. The university isn't well-known but the salary is greater than 17000 RMB per month which is more than enough for a couple. One can also consider universities in cities such as Suzhou, Hangzhou, Chengdu and Dalian.
Apart from salary, while coming to China, one should consider one's long term plan and personal priorities (e.g. kids' education, language barriers, food, internet freedoms, etc.,). It is also useful to consider that here number of publications matter more than quality research. Bureaucracy is a huge pain in the a** with no one willing to take ownership of decisions. Given the current geo-political environment, the economy will also have to go through some readjustments in the near future. If you decide to come, do expect some cultural shocks. Overall China is a great place to be for experiencing something different and exciting.
Hope this helps

You asked about tax as a postdoc in China, whether or not the salary for postdocs is tax free likely depends strongly on which country you are from. Some countries have tax treaties with China which include provisions for researchers to work tax free for a certain amount of time. The university will likely know better, but even then you can't be completely sure they will have up to date correct information.

As of 2016-2017, which is the period I am staying in China, the most common salary range paid for postdocs which I came to be informed of was within 8,000-14,000 RMB per month.
I must say this is highly variable depending mainly on agreements with college and supervisor(s). In reality there is a base salary which is paid by the government directly (in my case of ca. 5,600 RMB) and incrementing on the base salary is the usual practice everywhere. Typically there will be a bonus paid by the college, plus some extra paid by the supervisor, and plus there should be contractual agreements on who should pay for the postdoc's 'welfare' (i.e. loose term concerning rental & bills) and health insurance. In my case taxation happens only on the base salary and has been less than 5%.
Typically larger sums are offered to PhDs coming from universities ranked among top 100-300 in the world. Moreover it is my impression that US-passport holders are offered larger bonuses than PhDs from other countries, often in private.
One should expect some uncertainty on the full amount because a large portion relies on agreements and negotiation. The local culture has it that agreements are volatile and highly dependent on interpersonal relationships, and law/lawyers should have no business in the academia. It is common practice that salary bonuses are used to pressure students/postdocs to do as the college and/or supervisor wishes. Examples: salary deductions as punishments for being late, or caught chatting on the phone during work hours; not adding honorary authors; publishing less papers than expected; damaging equipment or breaking glassware. A bonus may be withdrawn under any pretext after some dispute, including open technical criticism.
The same flexibility always allows for negotiating raises or extra benefits, which are typically in exchange for co-authorships on more papers. These may include covering plane tickets to see family, or travel expenses. Don't be surprised if the raise is pushed further as a bait.
Finally I should stress that at most universities in China there are prizes for publishing papers and depositing patents. The prizes are normally money, calculated based on impact factor. For example publishing in a mainstream academic journal with IF 2-3 in the Life Sciences may be awarded 4-7k RMB. Publishing in top impact journals may award the first author much more (also whether the award should be shared is negotiable).

Thank you very much for your answer. I do have one question: Is the less than 5% tax nation wide? Does the local government charge any local tax?

Hi, I really cannot answer your question. General traits of the way China works: not transparent and things are usually not exactly as declared. The tax amount I retrieved from my online salary system.

Not sure about postdocs, but about here is as an example for faculty:
The faculty salaries change from 45 k USD to 75 k USD, more for distinguished professors. As far as I see, these values vary at most 10 k USD with respect to your location. But this is the basic salary. So, you should expect to pay 25 % to 30 % taxes.


text:
How to respond a reviewer's reply when he is asking about much more to be discussed?
I got review reply with three reviewers comments. Most of them are workable. I can address them while revising the manuscript. However, one reviewer is asking much more work, and based on my understanding, I feel that can be a another work. Thus, I want to politely answer that query with proper reasons. However, I am wondering if there is any formal way to address this issue?
I can say that, we totally agree with the reviewer's concern. However, this study which itself is a novel work, is a part of our future work.

Yeah, I think you've got the right answer.

One option would be to suggest this to the editor, before officially submitting your response.

I'm surprised not to find that this is a duplicate of something - it seems like a reasonably common question.

@Captain Emacs Got it. Is it normal to write email to the Editor before submitting the review response? Can't I mention it on the cover letter to the Editor. However, I am not sure that the cover letter to the Editor is often forwarded to the reviewers also.

@DavidZ It would be nice if there were some semantic clustering algorithms available for SE.

@Mithun Yes, you can do it this way, too.

One thing to make clear at the outset: it is the editor who controls whether your paper is published or not. Your task is to convince the editor, not necessarily the reviewer, that your paper merits publication.
Most editors will not blindly require you to implement all the reviewer's suggestions to get the paper published. After all, it's not like the reviewer necessarily knows better than you do what is going to make your paper publishable. (If multiple reviewers all make the same suggestion, that's a different story and an editor will put more weight on that.)
If you have a good reason not to do something suggested by a reviewer, you can not do it and point out in your response to the editor why you made that decision. The important thing is to make it clear that you didn't simply decide to ignore part of the reviewer's report. If you're going to avoid implementing any of their recommendations, you do need to justify it. It then falls to the editor to decide whether the paper is still publishable without that particular suggestion being implemented.
I'd add that saying that an addition to the paper would be too large and would justify an entire followup study on its own is a valid response. Even a reasonably common one, I would think. Reviewers haven't done the research themselves; they don't know how much work an extension would take, and if you say it would be too involved, there's a pretty good chance the editor believes that you know better than the reviewer on that point.

Good. Sometimes, most of the research work considers one or two aspects while keeping other issues unchanged as assumption. Thus, some reviewers easily catch these and ask to show the impact of these assumptions. Thus, it gets difficult to show the impact of all the issues, sometimes the main contribution is not properly highlighted due to complex scenario that are close to real environment. Thus, if we leave the Editor to decide between reviewers and authors, most of the time I see that Editors follow the reviewers. :)

What if the reviewer recommends an extension not possible in short time of the paper?

@Mikey Mike -- then you say in your reply, "This reviewer recommends an extension that is not possible in a short time".  Don't overthink it.

@Mikey Mike, this is the most common issue in most of the time. We need to say some good reason for that. Only the excuse due to short time does not always work, since Editor may not be convinced. We have to do some trick to overcome this issue.

What's sometimes worked for me is to e-mail the editor noting the conflicting demands of the referees and saying what you propose to do and asking if that would be OK? Depending on the circumstances I have also asked if doing X is a requirement for publication, and I have withdrawn or resubmitted depending on the response.


text:
PhD after a Co-op Masters program
I just did my bachelors in CS and am looking forward to studying further (I want to pursue a PhD because I love studying). I graduated with a good CGPA and a good overall profile so I think I can get into a good MS program.
For my MS I am applying to different universities these days. I have noticed a few universities offering a Co-op degree. As per my understanding in this degree, I would have to work (paid) for a few terms rather than writing a thesis.
My question is whether or not I should opt for a Co-op degree as I'm afraid it might hinder my chance of getting into a good PhD program? Don't good PhD programs prefer students with prior research experience (in other words students that have done their MS with thesis/research option)?

I don't see how your comment is relevant or helpful to the discussion? I made that statement to try and emphasize how passionate i am about pursuing further education.

No it is not relevant but to draw your attention that your statement is not objective.

Because the PhD is a research degree, admissions committees want to see from your application that you'll be able to be successful in research. This is easily demonstrated through prior research experience, which many students get while completing a Master's thesis. There are other ways to get research experience for people with a Bachelor's degree.
If your motivation for doing a Co-op degree is financial, you might consider looking into other methods to get research experience. Perhaps you can work as a research assistant while taking courses, or, if your University permits, do your Co-ops in a research lab in the industry. You might even spend some time after the Master's degree as a research assistant in the industry or at a national research lab. A Co-op degree certainly won't preclude you from getting your PhD in the future.
But if your motivation for doing a Master's degree is just to position yourself for a PhD program, I would recommend putting research experience as your first priority, and evaluating the various programs you're interested in based on how likely you are to graduate having done interesting research. In addition to gaining the skills necessary to do research, research experience will help you determine what sorts of projects grab and hold your interest, which will make it much easier for you to find a place that you'll enjoy doing your PhD at.
So, to summarize, research experience is very helpful for getting into a PhD program, and a Master's thesis will certainly provide that opportunity, but a Co-op program won't preclude the opportunity for research experience, although it might make the path more difficult.

Theoretically speaking, would it be possible for a person to be doing a co-op program and doing research/writing a thesis side by side? or is that an unrealistic goal?

That sounds realistic to me, particularly if you're able to connect with a professor/lab while taking courses.


text:
Mendeley - add notes to research
I am using mendeley to save papers etc. which have come up during my research. However, I am often having some ideas about problems which are interesting or some links which are worth reading later. I would like to add this to mendeley easily, sth like a workable document.
Is sth like that possible? What are you using for a problem like that?
I appreciate your answer!
Update
I am looking for a way to add general notes, which are not paper related?

Why the downvote without a comment?

Mendeley does let you add notes to your papers: On the right where the bibliography data is normally displayed there is a tab label notes.
Additionally you can add annotations when to a document you open in Mendeley using the buttons at the top.

Thx for your answer! However, how to add general notes, which are not paper related?

@Kare You'll need a different program for that. Evernote is quite good although I prefer simple Notepad(++).

Note that the notes field has a maximum length, which isn't clearly signalled. I just lost a half a day's work to this by writing notes on my phone that apparently got too long for the online database: when I synced, the last notes were just gone. gg

Mendeley is a great tool, but my personal preference while taking general notes is Evernote. The best feature being that it'll sync automatically to all your devices.
Mendeley is something that I use when I have to compile from a huge collection of papers.


text:
What is expected in a masters thesis of a mathematics student?
What is the level of work expected in the masters thesis of a student of maths?
I know some people's works are worthy of publications while some involve only studying some topic in detail from a book and submitting a summary (since this is akin to a couple of courses, a year worth of work, in that topic in terms of content covered, I would consider this,which I believe is called a literature review thesis, as an extreme opposite of independent research work thesis).

But what is the "average" level of a MS thesis of a mathematics student? Is it usually closer to a literature review thesis or a research work thesis?

In particular, I would also like to know:

How much is it valued (if at all) when one applies for PhD?

I have heard that its value is more in Europe than America, which if I were to guess I would say, may be due to absence of GRE like criterion there. Is this true?

Edit: After the wonderful existing answer explaining the case in Germany, I would really like to know the situation in US too. I expect a drastic difference due to the presence of GRE system but would like to know how much importance the thesis has, there.
PS: Please excuse me if one can find answers to some of these questions in already existing questions. I have searched, but couldn't find them. Please provide the links in those cases.
Also, anecdotal details will also be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

@user54981 Of course that would most certainly be there.

The difference between US/Canada and Europe is mainly due to the fact that in most European institutions, applicants to a PhD program are expected to held a Masters or equivalent degree, and the PhD program is often research only with close to no coursework. Compare to North American institutions where applicants to a PhD program are not expected to hold a Masters, and generally only hold a Bachelors degree, and where the program tends to be longer with a more significant coursework portion.

Note also that the European application process for entering a PhD program is often quite different from the typical North American one. (Search on this site if you want to know more; I'm sure it has been asked before.)

@NeerajKumar Not necessarily equations. Almost certainly inequalities such as the element relation.

@JacobWakem I don't understand what the term element relation is but isn't the presence of inequalities dependent on the topic? For example, a thesis in algebraic topology or geometry is most likely to not use any inequalities but one in functional analysis or number theory may have a lot of it..

@NeerajKumar x<y iff x is an element of y.

I think this varies a lot. But for Germany your first question can be answers succinctly: In a Master's thesis you should show that you have potential for research.
On the other hand, expectations vary a lot between advisors. But certainly you do not have to prove a new theorem or develop a new theory.

How much is it valued (if at all) when one applies for PhD?

I can only answer for the situation where you apply in Germany. The thesis can be a door opener if it is topic closely related to the field where you want to do a PhD. Also a good mark is important. But also in Germany hiring professors will often contact your advisors or request a reference letter and this is much more important.

I have heard that its value is more in Europe than America, which if I were to guess I would say, may be due to no GRE like criterion. Is this true?

Not sure on this point since I can't provide a comparison with the US and also I am not sure if the situation is uniform with the EU.

Thanks for the answer. As I mentioned, there are the two extremes in the kinds of thesis. In the first I can imagine the potential for research to be clearly visible( since they are doing actual research work) but how about the second case? If the work is only the study of a topic then? I doubt if it would reflect much on the potential to do research. Though one consideration that I can imagine is if the person spends his thesis studying on a certain topic then would it be of any advantage if person applies into that topic for PhD. Are such considerations taken into account?

Sorry if this is not getting more concrete, but, e. g., a literature review thesis can or can not show research potential. If your question is: What do I have to do in a Master's thesis do get a PhD position, the answer is "Nobody can tell you in advance." Go ahead and choose a thesis topic you find thrilling and write a good thesis.

From my knowledge of the US system (I did my graduate work in the US, and am currently a professor in the US), the average level of a masters thesis is relatively low. (That said, it usually does involve at least some original research).
The reason for this is the structure of Ph.D. programs in the US. Usually students are admitted to Ph.D. programs directly as undergraduates, and the first two years of the Ph.D. are similar to an MS program in Europe. Students who complete a Ph.D. don't generally write a masters thesis along the way. Rather, masters theses are usually written by students who decide in their second year not to continue with our Ph.D. program, but would still like to earn some sort of degree for their efforts. These theses are often weak (but sometimes are quite good).
Some students do use an MS as a stepping stone to Ph.D. programs elsewhere; indeed, I personally know students who successfully transferred to much stronger programs. Their MS-level work was much better than average.
In short: The degree itself won't be highly valued in the US, but doing an MS can lead to strong letters from your professors and research advisors, and these will be highly valued.

Another complication with master's theses, in the U.S., is a perception that the student "will do a PhD thesis anyway" if they go on to a PhD program, and so there is less need for the master's thesis to include challenging research. The motivation for writing a master's thesis becomes different from the motivation for writing a PhD thesis.

A great resource I have used to understand the quality of final thesis work for my primary focus is the Open Access Theses and Dissertations which has thousands of master's and Ph. D. final publications. Research this website using your topic and you will see what amount of research is involved, differences and similarities between schools, methodologies, etc.
In addition, a great site for further publications is http://Arxiv.org . Many thesis in the U.S. are 'sandwich' publications, involving an assortment of publications published while student is performing research.


text:
To choose which Masters program to attend, should I favor institution or specialization?
I am an Electronics & Communication Engineer and I want to pursue a masters degree.  After completing the degree, I would like to work in industry with zero inclination towards a PhD.
I am considering two institutions and two possible specializations (e.g., VLSI vs. Signal Processing). I prefer one institution over the other because of its general reputation, faculty, placements, and lab facilities. I prefer one specialization over the other because of personal preference, prior knowledge in the specialization field, type of possible jobs, and placements in the specialization field.
Suppose I am offered acceptance into the more-preferred specialization at my less-preferred university, and the less-preferred specialization at my more-preferred university.
Which option will better position me for my eventual goal, of completing the masters degree and getting a job in industry? Which criteria is more important in choosing a masters program, the institution or the specialization?

What "placements" are you talking about? Academic or industry?

@scaaahu industry.

I edited information from comments into the question and cleaned up now-obsolete comments.

This is extremely dependent on 1) the relative strengths of the institutions 2) your relative interest in each specialty 3) the relative availability of industry positions in each field. A general answer doesn't seem possible here.

Not so relevant but these questions may help you: How to decide which university to study for PhD and University rank/stature - How much does it affect one's career post-Ph.D?.

If your interest is in "industry," I'd choose a school based on the institution. Most employers look at that as the "headline," and often "gloss over" the actual content of the degree.
If your interest was in research, I'd go the other way and emphasize "specialization." Because that is what research is basically about.

Assuming that your preferred institution is regarded more favourably by the general public. That may not be the case.

@FionaTaylorGorringe:  "General reputation, faculty, placements, and lab facilities" spells "regarded more favorably by the general public" to me. Reminds me of my nephew's choice between Carnegie Mellon University and a "specialized" institution like Case Western Reserve.

i would recommend specialization primarily because better knowledge of the subject and personal preference will most likely yield better results and though the institution name is a factor for job applications, being the best at what you do will always tramp the good reputation of an institution (this is my opinion IF the job supply in both areas of expertise is pretty much the same)


text:
Should I add references for examples?
I am writing a paper in Computer Science / Information Technology.  At several points in the paper, I mention the existence of particular types of software products.  For example:

Advanced web data extraction systems offer the possibility for the user to define and execute Web wrappers by means of interactive graphical users interfaces (GUI) (e.g. Denodo, Kapowtech, Lixto and Mozenda).

The examples I am referencing are commercial products. Some of them have some articles associated with them which I can cite. Should I add reference to these articles? If yes, how can I do that?

Like any other external resources you mention in your paper, in my opinion, the sources for the examples should be listed as regular references. This can happen in various forms:

If there is a scientific paper that in some way presents the external resource, cite that paper.
If the resource is only presented on a website, cite that website like you would cite other web sources. This can take various forms, though you should be consistent within any one paper you write. The author, unless a single person, should probably be the name of the entity that published the resource. The title can either be the website title, or the name of the resource (e.g. software name).

This has various benefits:

All external works are collected in your references section.
If you refer to the same source several times (especially on several pages), you can use the usual mechanisms by placing cite references.
Readers will not get confused by different formats and places for finding external works you refer to.

In an afterthought, I would find it extremely hard to consistently distinguish "examples" from "normal references". By "normal reference", I imagine a paper that confirms a statement you make. Now, imagine a simple statement like

In past works, users have been provided with feature X.

for which you want to supply a paper that describes a commercial software that does provide feature X. Now, is this paper an "example" or a "normal reference" that serves to confirm your statement? Clearly, it can be seen as both ... which is why I generally advise against trying to distinguish between any such "categories" of cited works.

I suggest to add footnotes as an offer for further reading, if the journal you are writing for allows them. If your target journal does not, this answer may not be applicable to you.

Citing articles is possible, but: Usually one cites only sources that are contributing to the own scientific work, sources that changed the authors mind on something, that the author argues about, that the author judge to be relevant.
If you know a cite-able source that gives proof to your statement, than provide it with your usual citing style (APA, LNI, whatever), but if you just list examples, I suggest you to offer the sources (e.g. web addresses) as further reading in footnotes.
In any case web documents are tricky to cite, because they can change over time. This makes them not the best sources for scientific citation. You can lower the risk of changing web documents by using a web preservation service like WebCite. See footnote 1 below as an example.

Your example could look like this:

Advanced web data extraction systems offer the possibility for the user to define and execute Web wrappers by means of interactive graphical users interfaces (GUI) [Aut15] (e.g. Denodo1, Kapowtech2, Lixto3 and Mozenda4).

Footnotes (same page):
1 http://www.denodo.com/ checked on 2015-07-08, archived at http://www.webcitation.org/shortlink
2 http://www.kapowtech.com/
3 http://www.lixto.com/
4 https://www.mozenda.com

Bibliography (appendix):
[Aut15] Author Examply 2015 - "On Web data extraction systems" in Paper xyz

This advice doesn't work if the format doesn't allow for footnotes (and many journals don't!).

Uh.. okay, than this advice doesn't work. Most German journals for CS accept the usage of footnotes.

WTF?... MrMeritology... if you not agree with my answer, then write another on your own. Your edit absolutely changes my answer to something completely different. I NEVER would advise a person to put URLs to the textbody even if the journal would not allow footnotes. What you did destroyed my original intention of the answer and changed it to the inverse. Why can this be done without my review or permission?

Users with enough reputation can always edit other people's work. However, if you are dissatisfied with the changes, you can "roll them back," which is what I have done here. (You can also do so, by clicking on the "edited" link.)

I clicked to the edit link, but than the last (in my eyes "destroyed") version of the answer. Following the link 'edited x ago .. username" .. I find no "rollback to this version"-function. Maybe I just didn't understand how this roleback-thing technically works. Thank you for the roleback aeismail.


text:
How to write a paper with a parallel but non-trivial approach?
I am writing a paper that centers on Quantum Information Theory, approached using  Graph Theory. This approach has parallels to Matrix Theory, but it is very different from all existing Graph Theoretical approaches to this topic. We have submitted two papers to journals: 1) Physics Reviews and 2) Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, but both of them are rejected. We suspect that reviewers did not understand that our approach is not trivial.
My questions:

How should we present our method so that the reviewers can see its worth and see that it is not trivial?
How can we establish the parallel to Matrix Theory, but at the same time differentiate our approach and convey it's contribution to research?

Thanks for asking this question, but it is not written very well.  I do advise you to work on your writing skills in English.  I know you are in a very technical field, but good writing skills can only improve your chances of getting papers accepted in high quality journals.

Getting into the details would be too technical for this site, but my suggestion is spell it out explicitly.
If this issue is a concern for your readers and for the referees, there should be a section in your paper titled Why is this nontrivial? (maybe just after the introduction) where you argue on why your approach is relevant. If you can, include an example where it is apparent that your approach is more simple or more insightful.
Don't be afraid to toot your own horn.

The reviewers may not have understood why your approach is new or worthy. But that is not the reviewers fault, it is your failure to explain it well: if the reviewers don't understand it, other readers won't either.
So go back to the reviews, analyze them for what they said and why they could have been mistaken, and change your paper accordingly. If they don't see why your approach is new, spend the time in the introduction to explain why it is new and how it differs from existing approaches. If the reviewers complain that they don't see why taking a different approach is worthwhile because the result is the same, spend the time in the introduction or conclusions to explain what you think can be done with your approach that could not be done before.
In other words, use the reviews as a positive strategy to see how others read your paper, rather than getting mad at the reviewers.

"But that is not the reviewers fault, it is your failure to explain it well: if the reviewers don't understand it, other readers won't either." Sadly, this is used as a general explanation to cover not only insufficiently clearly written papers, but sloppy reviews as well. This is particularly the case when it is clear from the reviewer's comments that they haven't even properly read the paper they are supposed to review. I've recently had the experience where almost all of one reviewer's comments could be answered with a simple "Please reread section x.y". (1/2)

I didn't bother wasting time with a rebuttal, but I did email the editor pointing out the sloppy work of that particular reviewer and resubmitted the paper to another journal (where it was accepted). (2/2)

That happens so much more rarely than getting reasonable comments from reviewers that I don't think it serves well as a general guideline. Besides, readers oftentimes don't read papers carefully either -- so if a careless reading makes a reviewer miss important information, then normal readers would as well. I.e., the reviewer comments are still useful, if maybe not fair.

Indeed, fortunately, it is not common and the vast majority of reviewers is constructive. But, people who get constructive reviews, even if they are negative, don't (generally) complain that they are being treated unfairly. And in those cases the occurrence of sloppy reviews is not negligible. Readers also don't decide whether a paper gets published, so the responsibility is far lesser than that of a reviewer. Look at it this way, a paper may get dozens of views, but very little, if any, citations. A sloppy review prevented those citations, while sloppy reading, well, harmed only the reader.

First, did you receive feedback from reviewers of your two rejected articles?  Most journals provide reviewer comments for articles they reject.  If you did receive feedback, you should seek to understand all of their objections and suggestions (if any).
Second, if your Graph Theoretic approach is truly unique and adds value over Matrix Theory (and other existing approaches), then it is up to you to make this explicit in your Introduction and Method sections. (As Frederico advised)  What are the advantages and limitations of the Matrix Theory approach?  How does your Graph Theoretic method overcome these limitations?  What new does it add?
Third, you might have to admit that you are wrong -- that your Graph Theoretic approach is not sufficiently different from Matrix Theory or similar. Please do consider this alternative before you proceed.  The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the uniqueness and added value.  If you can't articulate it clearly and simply, then maybe it isn't there.
I suggest that you rewrite your paper with these goals in mind.  And then, before you submit it another journal, you send it to two or three colleagues who will be skeptical and critical of everything you write. You want people who are willing to pick apart every sentence, every equation, every diagram, every reference.  Only after you go through one or two review cycles with these colleagues should you submit to a journal again.


text:
Grades in a PhD program
I am a math grad student who has completed the qualifying exams within my first two years. Lately, I have been taking a few non-core courses, which allows me to put most of my time on my own research. In one of these non-core courses, I received a low grade: B-. I certainly have the a good Cumulative Grade Point Average: 3.9 -- well above what is required for "normal progress".
Question: How important/serious is getting a grade below 3.0 in this one course at this point in a PhD program? Any feedback is much appreciated.

Do non-core courses have a minimum grade that you must get? The impact will probably be only on if or not you could use a "low" grade towards your degree. So here is an example from my univ in the USA. I take a non-core course and get a B-. Suppose the minimum I need to achieve is a B. Although the B- will be used to calculate my overall gpa, this course may not be used towards completion of my degree (in case my PhD has course requirements).

Yes, they do. Anything less than 3.0 cannot be used towards your degree.

I'm an advanced graduate student in Physics, and I've gotten a B- in a class. I have also gone through rigorous job application processes, and generally, nobody will care about your GPA.
In Academia, papers, references, and networking will determine your postdoc or faculty position, grades won't even be considered.
If you plan on going into industry, a completed PhD and the brand name of your institution might be very important to get an interview, and depending on the job your comfort with problem solving and advanced technical concepts might matter. Companies will generally only look at your transcript after they've hired you to confirm your enrollment and completion of the program.
One B- is nothing to worry about, especially for a PhD student!

A C, however, would be worrisome for other reasons.

I had a B in a class not directly related to my Ph.D. work. I took the class because I wanted to expand my horizons, and sure enough it did. I don't think the B ultimately hurt me at all. I will say that one curious job interviewer asked me about my less than 4.0 GPA, and I told him I earned a B precisely because I was pushing my boundaries. He appreciated that!


text:
Are there any actions professors can take online to contribute towards "service requirements"?
I would like to fulfill my service requirements for the tenure review process.  My question: Is it possible to help fulfill these requirements through on-line activities?  E.g. Mentoring students online, or participating in some sort of on-line collaborative community?

Can you give more context to the question for better understanding.

That's going to be up to whoever is implementing and reviewing this policy for your school. Ask them.

@MrMeritology Although I voted to re-open this question because it makes some sense to me. But, I have a question for you: How do you know the service requirements is for the tenure review process? The OP did not say that.

@scaaahu: The question was tagged tenure track from the beginning.

I voted to close as the service requirements very wildly by departments, divisions, and schools. It's impossible to give a definitive answer for the OPs particular case. The question should be written more generally.

I don't really understand the "online" restriction. In this day and age, practically every interaction between people will involve some online component. Are you saying you specifically want to avoid having to interact with people any other way? If so, why?

@keshlam's comment is correct:  this is a question for the folks in your department. There are activities (internal and external) that feel like "service" that are not viewed as "service" ... it varies by department and school.  Just like expectations for research and teaching.
And make sure you ask folks who are giving you fact-based, not opinion-based answers.  You should have a tenured faculty mentor (if you don't, get one!), but they might not know the facts on this.  There should be an RPT chair in your department or school:  ask them.  You might also ask your chair:  if they chair views what you are doing as reasonable service, they may be able to argue for it counting, even if it's unusual.
But, in the end, this is not a question for anyone outside your school.  We don't vote. :)