text:
Do most professors in North America eventually have to give up directly doing research for a purely managerial role in research?
I enjoy doing research directly and this was my motivation for seeking an academic job in the first place. I am aware that many professors at some point cease directly doing research and transition to purely guiding the research of postdocs and graduate students. My PhD advisor, for instance, did not set up and run simulations himself during most of the time that I worked for him. However, I had the impression that this was due to his personal tastes (I saw him as valuing prestige and advancement rather than gaining joy from science itself, which might have been unfair). However, I just spoke to a recently tenured professor in my field who seemed to have a lot of passion for the details of the work (as I do) and was quite shocked when he told me that he hadn't run a simulation himself in several years.
As a tenure-track professor at a North American university with a few years of experience, I am quite aware that the demands of writing proposals, teaching and administrative tasks make it difficult to spend a lot of time "with your hands in the dirt" directly performing research tasks. However, I would like to know: Is it common for successful professors to still directly do significant research themselves? Must I give up all day-to-day research tasks to be a successful professor? Is moving toward a purely managerial role inevitable? Will I grow to gain more satisfaction from directing my students in research than doing it myself? Do many professors miss directly performing research, but feel that they can no longer do it due to other demands?
In my field, doing research directly involves setting up and running simulations, as well as writing code to analyze the results. However, I'd like to also hear about people's experience in experimental fields, where the analog of running simulations would be going into the lab and directly running samples on laboratory equipment.
The following thread covers the reasons why professors don't spend a majority of their time directly doing research, but I'd like to know if successful professors can spend some of their time directly doing research or how they feel about no longer being immersed in the details of their research.
Why professors spend most of their time to write proposals than doing research?

This at least depends on the field (e.g., my assumption is that this mostly can't be the case in math). Perhaps specifying your field would help get better responses?

This is hard to answer.  In my field, there are top guys who continue to get their hands dirty and there are those who become managers of all things research.  Personally, I have not coded up anything significant in the past 10 years.  I only go far as being able to give students a pseudo-code or flow-chart.  Students will need to work out the details themselves.

This does not seem as a good use of your time. Why would you do something a graduate student can do as good as you? You can go on and do something else that is more important.

Only give up research if you can't do anything your students can't. Until then, if you continue to do research, you'll do things your students can't.


text:
Include publication done outside PhD study
While preparing the thesis, there is a section on list of published journal/papers.
Should I include also some published papers before I started doing the PhD study ?
The topics of the previously published papers are not strictly related to the PhD study and not contributing to the content of the thesis.

It sounds like these previous papers were not within the scope of your PhD project, so on that basis should not be mentioned in the thesis.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Goal for 20min. presentation at math conference
I've been invited to give a 20 minute talk at a mathematics conference in a couple months.  The audience members all work in my field, so they will be familiar with most of the terminology and background.  I have plenty of material to pull from a preprint I've already submitted to journals, and it seems I have two reasonable options:
Option A.  Present everything to communicate the over-arching theme of my  research.  I could provide several very minimal proof sketches along the way.
Option B.  Present one very interesting result (with its lemmas), with more detailed proofs.  I could then "sprint" through some related results at the end, or avoid them entirely.
Which will be most valuable to the audience members? Which will make me "look the best"?

The other answers have been good, so I'm not going to make a full answer just a comment, but it may help to ask your adviser (if you are a grad student or undergrad) and it may really help to talk to the conference organizers to see what they think would work.

I'll add that you need to confirm the speaking time. Usually speakers also have some time for Q&A after the formal presentation. So if you have 20 minutes total, then plan to speak for 15 and allow 5 for Q&A. If no questions then you perhaps can make some additional points for a couple of minutes.

Since you seem unsure of this I’m going to assume you’re new at this. I’d say focus on a particular topic unless you’re very senior in the field. These kind of retrospective overview talks are generally reserved to invited plenary speakers. If you attended a conference before, try to emulate the structure of the best talks you’ve seen. It’s pretty common for speakers to choose a topic most relevant to the audience (even if they work on other things too).

I recently gave exactly this kind of talk. I centered my talk around an important tool I use and which is quite nice (nothing too sophisticated). It went great, mainly because of the simplicity of the presentation. I think that in this setting, just as Samuel's spot-on answer suggests, less is more. Presenting one interesting result will draw enough attention for you to discuss later on everything else in more detail with whoever is interested.

Let me comment that it's possible to be too ambitious with either option A or B. When mathematicians give their first presentations, there is a tendency to try to squeeze way too much material in. Give a practice presentation to your colleague or your advisor to make sure you haven't succumbed to this temptation.

If you have one very interesting result, then I would go with focussing the talk around that. The alternative of trying to cram multiple topics into a 20 minute would be very difficult because that's not a lot of time. Your talk is more likely to be remembered if you present one very interesting result.

As someone who has very little experience with this kind of thing, I think this is what I would most enjoy as well. Something like using one very interesting result to maybe present your method, and then at the end presenting a few things that can also be achieved as consequences of the method or results.

The goal of such presentations should be to interest the audience in your work.
If you fail to do this, your interaction with them will be limited to the 20 minutes allotted.
But if you succeed, they will likely seek you out later, and you will have ample opportunity to expand on the work.
Both of your options are viable: journey highlights and ‘curio’ examination can both be enjoyable. Imagine yourself in the audience, at a time before you did your research. Then pick whichever option would make you want to invite the speaker for a coffee to discuss more.

I'm going to assume that you aren't an experienced teacher or you might already know the answer.
The tendency is to try to add too much and wind up being overly detailed and pedantic. If you want to give a detailed presentation, then use Option B. Don't depend on having any time to sprint, though. But you should have something to add if you finish early.
However, if you really want to give people insight into what you do, rather than detail, then you could use Option A, but leave out the detail. This one is harder to manage unless you have a lot of insight yourself and can speak in meaningful generalities.
Either of these would be meaningful to your audience. However, if you expect to be facing a number of doctoral students in your field, giving insights is probably more value to them. An exception would be if one or more of the proofs in your presentation is especially interesting in its own right. Interesting proofs are usually more important than the theorems they support as they can open bottlenecks in other research.
Which is easier, depends on you. Which makes you "look best" is impossible to say.
Try to save time for questions. Doing a bit less is probably better than trying to do too much. People can always follow up later if you give them contact information.

+1 for discussing the options. I'd add that among all the talks I've attended, both in my particular areas and more generally, I found  the overviews that offer insight are the much more valuable and enjoyable. And if your audience misses some small point they are not lost for the rest of the talk.

An important part of a talk is to introduce your topic and subfield. You need to convince them why what you’ve done is important. Even specialised conferences have broad audiences who may not be familiar with your techniques or application. Even if they are your interpretation of concepts and your assumptions should be stated clearly since people from different places may not follow the same conventions. You will need to explain them in more detail than you would to people familiar with your progress. No matter the conference, you should not assume that they’re already familiar with your topic: it’s your responsibility to explain it (of course can adjust your content to your audience).
You need to get them interested in your topic, tell them why it’s important, why you took the approach you did, and what was challenging or novel about it. A clear structure is essential for any talk. You need to allow time for this.
Considering this, 20 minutes is not a long time slot. You should focus on one or two key results and explain them well. We all do far more work than ends up in our papers or talks and it’s understandable that you want to show your work. However, it’s more important to communicate the key findings well. Especially, if you’re early in your career, you should aim to demonstrate that you know what you’re doing and have mastered particular techniques. If they’re from a related field, they probably have an overview of your area already so a key example to demonstrate why they should care about your area is going to be more interesting for them than yet another overview.
If you race through everything you’ve done, you won’t stand out and know one will understand what you’re talking about or why it’s important. You can of course mention the other research directions that you are working on to put it into context of what you’ve done and what you’re doing next but you need to focus on something. Every PhD student or postdoc has a mountain of data. What your future employers and collaborators are looking for is someone that understands what they’re doing and can communicate it well.
It’s also considerate to finish your talk on time. Allow plenty of time for questions and discussion afterwards. If you go overtime, you will have to rush and this will not help your nerves. You’ll be very unpopular if you cut into the time of the person after you and delay everyone’s coffee break. Keeping a conference on time is difficult and adhering to the schedule is important. It’s a lot easier to keep to time if you set achievable goals of a few key points. You need to identify the most important findings to present or emphasise: this is a skill you should develop in a career as an academic researcher.
Help yourself and your audience by preparing well. There’s only so much that people can remember for take home messages from a full day of talks anyway. Think about what you want them most to understand from it. If they want to know more, they can discuss it with you after your talk or read your papers. The purpose of a talk is really to introduce yourself and give people context and background.

You still need to put your work in context, especially if people may join from another parallel session (as they often do). Jumping right in to the details is exactly what I take issue with in departmental talks. You cannot assume that that they’re familiar with the topic already: there are many different subtopics. If you cannot explain it well to members of your own department familiar with your progress, you need to rethink how to introduce it to people from beyond who’ve never seen your work before.

"Even specialized conferences have broad audiences who may not be familiar with your techniques or application. You will need to explain them in more detail than you would in your department." Where does this come from? If everybody giving a talk in a special session on, say, Geometric Analysis and Geometric Flows gave an introduction that was broader than what would be needed in your math department, half of each talk would be repeating information that every other single talk in the special session contained. A big waste of time for a very short 20-minute talk.

In math departments, you can't assume that other members of your department know anything about your research. The people in his audience are going to have a huge head start over most other people in his department because they already know the field.

If you're talking at a specialized math conference, or a special session, you should pitch your talk so that researchers in your area, and closely related areas, will be able to understand it well. It shouldn't be so specialized that the only people who can understand are in your narrow area, but it doesn't need to be so broad that it bores all the people in your field. If your audience is much broader (say a colloquium at another math department), you shojld pitch your talk so most mathematicians can understand it, but it will probably be a lot longer than 20 minutes.

You’re misrepresenting my point. Of course you should change your content for your audience. That is obvious. Mathematics and specialised conferences are no exception here. That doesn’t undermine the importance of structure. You still need to put your findings in context of the field. Those that do this and those that fail to do so is the often the difference between and good and bad talk. I’ve seen mathematics speakers do this, it’s not asking too much.

Your answer is much better now.

Communicate the theme (A) sans the "several".  Pick one or two of most interest.  20 minutes is not much time.
Remember people are deluged with different micro papers and talks.  If you give them a general feel for an area that is more benefit (even for experts).

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


text:
Best way to respond to a request for CV after graduation
I did a summer internship in an industry for 9 week. It was a great experience and my supervisor was a very formal and professional lady. She rarely smiled but appreciated my work every now and then. On my last day, she asked about my graduation date and I told her it’s just 6 months away as it was my last semester.
She responded: "Send me your CV when you graduate.”
Now I want to write to her. How do I begin with that? It’s been 6 months and there’s no particular opening in that department. Should I send my CV in the first mail itself? If so should I also include a cover letter? What's the best way to introduce myself?

You’re overthinking this. She said to send her your CV, so absolutely send her your CV. Not much ambiguity here... as for the other details, I like @JoshuaZ’s suggested formulation.

Just a comment to your (deleted) update: Just send a "thank you very much"mail. All is fine now.

Just send a note with 1 to 3 short paragraphs.

Remind her of the work you did together (you are colleagues, brothers in arms).
Give her an update on what you have done during the last 6 months (e.g. papers you published, your thesis, courses you took).
Let her know what job options you are looking at (even prospects). Ask her for any advice on your prospects and whether she knows of any opportunity at her place or elsewhere.
Thank her for the time together and how it benefited you.

And yes, include the CV.

While this is a good basis for a note, IMO it lacks mentioning that you are sending this per the recipient's request for the information. If this note/CV ends up going through someone that is filtering such information for the recipient, it's important for it to be clear that the CV that's being provided was actually requested, rather than just coming out of the blue (regardless of mentioning that there's already an established working relationship). Information that's been requested has a far better chance of sailing quickly through any human filtering that's being done on CVs.

Something like : "Dear Dr. ____, I hope this email finds you well. You asked me to send you a copy of my CV when I graduated; please find it attached. I remain interested in _____ and working at _____ if possible.
Sincerely/Best regards (whichever sounds better),
NAME"
Simple and to the point.

Unfortunately, this phrasing starts off making it sound like OP is doing this burdensome thing as a favor to the manager.  Better would be "Thank you for your interest in my CV" or "Thank you for inviting me to submit a CV", both of which affirm the request and that OP values the opportunity.

@BenVoigt That's a good point. That is a better wording.

You should thank her for the opportunity to work with her in the past and mention the project if it has a name. Tell  her you've now graduated and are sending the CV as per her request.
Make the letter fairly broad. While she may not be able to hire you directly, she may want to promote you to others or aid you in some other way.
You could also mention your current/future plans, but don't make it too long or wordy. Include contact information.


text:
How can I remove a verified google-scholar account?
I have moved to another university and created a new google scholar account here. However, my old account which was verified with the academic email address of the former university still shows up. I am no longer at my old university so I CAN'T LOGIN to that old account in order to delete it. I tried to remove that verified google scholar, but I could not. I also contacted google scholar via google scholar support email, that is ‘scholar-support@google.com’ but nobody answered me.
So, I'm wondering how to delete that old account?

Contact google scholar, why do you think we are google scholar help?

a simple search on here gives : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/55400/72855

@SolarMike "I also contacted google scholar via google scholar support email, that is ‘scholar-support@google.com’ but nobody answered me." Many of us also are people who have used Google Scholar and may be able to help.

@SolarMike There's little chance to contact Google and get to talk to an actual human.

@JiK “many of us also are people” or “many of us are also people”?

Deletion of the entire linked Google account worked in my case.
I used to have a Google Scholar profile through a Google account at a corporation but when they (unwillingly) deleted my account, the Google Scholar automatically got deleted. Considering Google did not get back to you, it might be worthwhile to get in touch with your old university to see if they could permanently delete your account.


text:
What is the industry standard for the level of technical detail when writing about machine learning for a paper in a science journal?
I am writing a paper which utilizes machine learning to guide clinical decisions regarding a certain disease. This paper will be submitted to some neonatology journals in the next couple months, but I have never written anything about machine learning in this context before. Additionally, if published this would be my first paper ever. Unfortunately, I don't have anyone of whom I can ask kinds of questions.
Currently, the technical portion of the paper includes everything we tried to select a good machine learning model. For example, all hyperparameters are listed, all attempted feature engineering is listed, all algorithms implemented are listed, etc.
A few questions:

Should I include every model we tried including those that we didn't?
Should I include hyperparameters for gridsearch or only the best hyperparameters?
Should I include every method of feature engineering we implemented?
Should I include examples of the data's structure?

General advice is appreciated too.

What do other papers written in your field do?

@BryanKrause I can see papers on google scholar that give a large amount of detail and not enough for replication of the paper. Some even redefine well-known algorthms in their paper. I am rather uncertain as to how properly to proceed.

So who is “we”? if your advisor then ask them...

@SolarMike I mean my company and I. None of them are data science people and I've still got lots to learn so we are in a small pickle.

The following is the standard for deep learning literature as far as I am aware:

Should I include every model we tried including those that we didn't?

No, only include your best model (or at least, the ones you want to show). Journal space is limited, so people generally don't include unsuccessful attempts.

Should I include hyperparameters for gridsearch or only the best hyperparameters?

Only the best hyperparameters. If one of your model's selling points is it's resilience to different hyperparameters then you might include a diagram showing how the different hyperparameters affect the results. If not then the worse-performing hyperparameters are irrelevant.

Should I include every method of feature engineering we implemented?

Yes, this is important for reproduction.

Should I include examples of the data's structure?

That would be nice, but perhaps not necessary. Perhaps include it if your data is very non-standard.


text:
GitHub repository ownership as a PhD student in a lab
I'm a PhD student and use GitHub to track and share code for nearly all of my research projects, most of which are largely coding-based work in the field of remote sensing.
Our lab is discussing how to best keep track of all the software related projects we do. I generally start and manage projects where I'm first author under my own GitHub account. I recently started a organization account for our lab and I have a repository in there that is basically just a README listing everyone's projects and links to them. We also have this information on our lab website.
I'm considering the pros and cons of having projects owned by the lab account, but I am leaning somewhat away from this, because most of these projects are individually maintained by students or lab technicians and it seems fairer to have them get credit on their own accounts. But we all want the lab to get credit and for people to know certain tools were developed within and supported by our lab.
Anyway, I'm just curious what other labs do and to get a feel for best practices here.

If you want ownership to fall under the lab, then you should create an account representing your laboratory, put the repo under there and contribute to the project there

What stops the individuals from making forks and then submitting PRs to the lab repo?

@Daveguy No need for that; github supports "organizations" which are a different thing from joint user accounts.

It's fairly common for labs to have GitHub organizations. There are multiple reasons for this.

First of all, it doesn't prevent the authors from getting credit. The commits will be shown as commits of the individual, not as commits of the organization.
Labs often have a scientific "brand" in terms of what they research. If the GitHub repository is completely personal, then your work does not fully contribute towards this brand. But contributing towards the joint scientific output of the groups is a major reason why you may get funding from the group's third party funding.
Perhaps most importantly, PhD students eventually leave the lab. They can continue maintaining their projects if they want to - there is no necessity to be an administrator of a GitHub organization to continue maintaining existing repositories. But what if the leaving PhD students choose not to maintain the code? If the repository is personal, then other people in the lab then cannot commit bugfixes to the repository. They could fork it, but once the repository link is in a scientific paper, the original repository is the official one. And this is problematic if the group's brand depends on the repository because it's a central part of their overall story.

Beyond credits from commits, the students can also pin their most important repositories to their profile, regardless of who owns the repository.

In some way, trust too. I'm more likely to believe in code owned by a lab org than some individual.

Point 3 also makes the case for private repositories (raw data, paper drafts, theses, proposals) to be put at a lab-controlled place. Moreover, knowing the repo will be at least lab-public might push people into making browsing/interpretation/building as easy and reproducible as possible. At leat it does for me.

Coming from industry, it's point 3 all the way. Academia seems rather tied to whatever you do in the lab being your property; but in fact it is not, as folks would discover very quickly if they ever tried to take their work commercial. Succession management is the most important element of data and document control - your lab (or your company, in industry) will usually survive perfectly well if your work is accidentally made public; but it will almost certainly die immediately if key data and documents are lost.

"repository link is in a scientific paper" - you shouldn't use a git repository to share your code along with the paper, this is bad practice for reproducibility. Instead, archive the code version used in the paper in figshare or zenode and then share the DOI.

@TheDoctor This is not about the experiments in papers. If the authors of a new technique introduce it in a paper and want it to be used/cited by other researchers, they will normally include a link to a website (e.g., to a Github page). Archival-for-Reproducibity does not really help here because that prevents code maintenance. Quite often, code doesn't even compile after a few years because of changes in C/C++ compiler defaults, hence the need for maintenance, and archived code version won't help here. Code version used for Experiments can still be archived in the way you write.

@DCTLib Even if the end goal is the code itself and not experiments, someone will use the code in the future and needs to point out which version they used for publishing/reproducibility. I use both github and Zenode, which can automatically archive every new release directly from github. On top of that you can dockerize your analysis for longterm reproducibility and avoid compiler updates breaking legacy code.

For me it boils down to the question: Does the individual student take the software with him after the PhD and build his career on it? Or does the lab base a large share of its work on this code and multiple students will contribute and maintain the code.
An example for single person is Tim Davis' UMFPack / Suitesparse. He wrote multiple articles about the algorithms and further improvements. When he moved from Florida to Texas, he took all software with him.
If your concern is about the future of the software, it depends on the people. If the single developer leaves academia, the project is at danger. If the group maintaining the software cannot motivate new PhD students to pick the task up and continue maintaining, the project will break.

This does not make sense because software can be moved to a new account.

This is an important point. In many cases, the lab will no longer have the expertise to continue developing the software after the original author leaves.

If your audience is non-programmers or infrequent programmers:
Most people will not look at Github accounts or care which account is associated with your code.  They will look at the manual.  They will look at journal articles about your code.  It's possible they might look at a copyright notice.
Write a useful manual, and state at the beginning of it who should get credit for writing the software.

You don't have to answer these questions, but what country and what institution? In my country (USA) there are intellectual property laws for federally funded research (a lot if not most STEM research) and institutional rules resulting from those laws that make it expedient for the institution to have the ability to own the repo and whatever it contains. When the students/postdocs/other researchers leave, they'll need to have guaranteed that the GitHub ownership or access stayed with the lab or institution. At my institution, that incentivizes many projects to go open source (which is fine with the federal law (Bayh-Dole Act) and my institution  (UT Austin)) which requires explicit paperwork at UT (the feds don't seem to care too much but they do like commercial products and OSS products simultaneously).
Seeing commits as credit/blame is one thing (which I guess you could show off on a CV), but that's not the real point. Bayh-Dole gives the institution the opportunity, practically the mandate, to commercialize the software, which they sometimes try to do. But, as you can find on the internet, it's weird when it comes to commercializing software. Nevertheless, your institution may have policies in effect that demand that you declare software products that were created under government-funded work so that the law can be followed. We are consulted about whether we think the software is commercializable, and the law requires the "inventor" to get a cut of any sales or licenses (which I've seen happen to the substantial benefit of the author), but it's not pushed very hard if you say "there's no market for selling this as a product, and we ought to open source it on GitHub." UT trusts the author/inventor to make that call, and many NSF grants are starting to come with a mandate that any software developed under the grant be opened (don't know how this is made to mesh up with Bayh-Dole's desire to commercialize everything!).
All that makes me think that you ought to have a GitHub owner account for the lab that is controlled by the most expert git/GitHub user in the lab with the password information being shared via a good shared mechanism (i.e. a password safe that supports sharing). There also ought to be a process in place for what happens to change both the GitHub owner account and any other shared passwords when they leave.

Storing passwords in a password manager is a good practice, but GitHub allows for organizations with multiple owners, GitHub recommends that you have at least two owners, and that way everyone can login with their own private account and not share passwords. Ensuring continuity of ownership is important one way or another though, however you do it.

There is no relationship between "Github ownership" and "intellectual property ownership."


text:
Plagiarism and credible sources
Plagiarism is the reuse of other's materials without proper credit and acknowledgement [1]
Credible sources are vaguely defined, but it can be attributed to verifiable facts in the literature [2]
I want to ask that, in a situation, when an academician found an "inspiring" idea (not necessarily well-defined) on the non-academic part of the Internet, such as some blogs, or discussion on the social networks, a Youtube video, or some crude Python scripts, etc, and work out on their own to shape up an explicit scientific study or, for example, write up a sophisticated numerical package, then two there are two things here: (1) the source does not provide a scientific study, nor in an academic form, thus it cannot be considered as "credible source", so usually it cannot be cited, (2) but it provides a crude idea that one formulates a scientific problem based on it, so not citing it should be considered as plagiarism.
What is the way to deal with it? Whether to cite or not to cite? For a casual discussion on the Internet to inspire research might be rare in reality, at least it is me who hasn't seen a case, but what if this situation came into reality?

When using someone else's idea, you should cite it, whether or not it's "credible" or "academic". I disagree with your assertion that a non-credible source usually cannot be cited. In fact, if I write a paper explaining why someone else's paper is nonsense, then I have to cite that other paper even while explicitly saying it's nonsense.

"Credible source" is just a judgement call. Cite it. You cause no harm in citing, but possibly do in avoiding it. Harm to your own reputation.

What is the way to deal with it? --- I don't know what field you're in, but it's fairly common to see "personal communication" or some such in bibliographies of mathematics papers. In the introductory/motivational part of the paper you could say something along the lines of A (your informal source) observed B, which suggests that method C could be a useful way of approaching D, and this paper is the result of carrying this out.

Giving "credit" has nothing with the sources being "credible". You seem to be confusing the two concepts due to the words having the same root. Plagiarism is plagiarism whether the source that is ripped off is credible or not.

In some academic situations, it is not acceptable to use someone's work even if the source is credited.  For instance, in an examination, you cannot copy the neighboring student's answer even if you add a footnote saying  1. From my neighbor's exam paper; used with permission.

I'm not sure where you heard that you should only cite "credible" sources. Credibility is a judgement call, best avoided. You should always cite things that you have found and used, even if they were ill formed when found. The ideas are those of others that you have developed further. But the idea didn't originate with you, so you are open to charges of plagiarism if you don't cite. The likelihood of a formal charge may be slim, but other academics might doubt you if you cut corners.
That doesn't, however, mean that you have to accept the veracity of the things you cite. In fact, you can, and in some cases should, discuss the doubts you have or the ill state in which you found a resource that you use.
I'll note that in mathematics, we sometimes have to cite papers that contain serious errors so that we can correct those errors. But our work is still based on the work of the earlier mathematicians, even if we correct it.


text:
Remote writing of master's thesis vs. taking a course
I am currently writing a masters thesis (in mathematics). I began a month ago, but I have been stuck to the point of feeling like I'm wasting my time. I don't have good grasp of the fundamentals needed for the problem I'm tackling and worst thing is they aren't even written anywhere because it's somewhat obscure. And all information I find that looks germane, seems to assume a lot of knowledge I don't have. My advisor helps a lot but we only see each other for two hours once a week and it being online it's a lot more difficult to communicate and ask and interrupt than usual. Additionally, with everybody stuck at home it's also not easy to get help from peers, as setting up a call is much harder than running into somebody on the hall and having to email and email back is a lot more work than just oral interaction so people are less up for it.
On the other hand, my institution allows one to replace a master's thesis with an additional advanced class. Actually this is what most students do, because generally it's thought that an advanced course is time better spent unless you have a clear path towards solving a problem in an area you're comfortable in (I don't know why for a moment I thought it would be a good idea to go against the grain on this one, during a pandemic at that). I'm finding this option attractive because following a class that has a guiding book would be a lot easier in the basically self-learning environment we currently inhabit than scrambling for readable material that doesn't really exist, and also because I think I could get a recommendation letter from the professor from that course while my current thesis advisor has already taught me a couple of classes I think he already would be able and willing to right me a recommendation letter.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how badly my advisor would take if I suggest this. I'm not sure if he will intetpret it as me "giving up at the first sight of trouble" (which I don't think I am, I truly have worked my a** off for a month and have felt basically no advances in my understanding of this because I think I'm missing some fundamental prerequisites).. . I'm not sure if this would weaken the rec letter that he would write for me.
But I do feel like for my growth as a mathematician, and perhaps to avoid needles s frustration and burnout, the present circumstances make the class a better use of my time. (And also, I really need 1 more rec letter from somebody else).
What do you think I should do? Do you think my advisor would understand this position? Do you think I am in fact being weak? Or do you think my points towards taking the class instead do make sense, as I feel they do?

Take this up with your advisor - try to frame it as observations, not complaints or worries or self-denigration.

What are your overall career and academic goals?

@Vladhagen Being a research mathematician.


text:
Should I accept an invitation to give a talk from someone who might review my proposal?
I submitted a grant application a few weeks ago where I was asked to list some potential reviewers. One of these potential reviewers just invited me to give a talk at their university. I would like this potential reviewer to be able to review my grant application because I feel that they are knowledgeable in the field and would have a favorable view of topic in my application. By accepting this invitation, would I be creating a conflict for this potential reviewer? Should I not accept the invitation? Should I give a talk on a different topic than my grant application so as not to bias the reviewer?

It's the potential reviewer's responsibility to declare or avoid any conflict of interest, not yours.
If the potential reviewer isn't asked to review your proposal (or declines for other reasons) then there's no conflict of interest.
If the potential reviewer does end up reviewing your proposal and you've declined an invitation to speak at his institution that potential reviewer might hold it against you.
If you do accept the invitation, this wouldn't by itself be sufficient to create a conflict of interest that would prevent the potential reviewer from reviewing your proposal.
Thus I wouldn't hesitate to accept the invitation.

Yes. I also think that the "reviewer" may be taking advantage of you - trapping you into agreeing. Not necessarily, though. Maybe they just saw an opportunity to bring in someone knowledgeable. You also don't say (or probably know) if they know they were on your list of potential reviewers. In any case, there is no conflict of interest on your part here as the other party initiated the request.

It's possible that this person was selected to review your proposal, has begun reading it, and thinks enough of your ideas to want to learn more. It's also possible that he wants to hear, in your talk, things that were already in your proposal --- the point here is that a reviewer is not allowed to use the content of the proposal for any purpose other than writing the review, but if he also gets the same content by another route, like your talk, then he can build on it (on his own or in collaboration with you).
In any case, I don't think your accepting the invitation and giving a talk would  create a conflict of interest for the reviewer, even if your talk is on the same topic as your proposal.


text:
My advisor signed a contract to hire me, but then external funding fell through. Should I force him to take me anyway?
I'm in a very strange situation. I have been accepted to a PhD program in the UK which was supposed to be financed by an external company (this was arranged by the advisor). I've already accepted and met my conditional offer and stipend but the external company withdrew their support and I (implicitly) understand from my advisor that without funding he will not be able to take me on.
From what I understand the accepted offer and stipend are considered contractually binding and that the lack of finding is not "my problem" anymore. Is that so? and if so, can I and should I really insist that my advisor take me on regardless of finding new funding sources?
Clarifications:

I have discussed this with him already; he is actively looking for positions for me elsewhere.
My contract does not say anything like "contingent on availability of funds."

Edit:
My goal was never to litigate the matter or get some compensation out of it but to find a way to do the PhD program. As many said in the comments it is not realistic to force such a relationship even if "i am in the right". He is already doing his best to find a solution and I will work with him to that end. I guess that if it fails I will simply move on.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation (mostly answers in comments) has been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

Your offer is made by the University, not your advisor. Someone in admissions probably messed it up, but fwiw this is neither your, nor your advisor's problem. As soon as University gave you an offer, and you met the conditions, it's legally binding.
Many other answers are written under assumption that PhD is an employment and hence "probationary period" or "redundancy" can be applied. This is not correct. In the UK, PhD is considered "training", not employment. The University's offer for you is their promise to provide you with a particular service. Even if the industry partner goes bust (which is not impossible), the University is still under obligation to fulfil their side of the deal. If the University absolutely can not serve you (e.g. the only qualified professor has just left, the lab building collapsed, their license is revoken), they must find another suitable program for you and pay your tuition fees and relocation.
These obligations are not merely ethical, but can be and often are enforced. The relevant regulator in the UK is  the Office for Students. Obviously, I am not a lawyer,  so I can't give you any legally reliable advice. But I believe you are right and OfS will be able to support you if the University disagrees with your arguments in this case.

I think this is the right answer. From the university's perspective, the simplest solution is for the OP to agree to quietly disappear. A starting point of "sorry, there's no money, kthxbye" is intended to encourage this. Pushing back some may be effective in getting attention from people high enough up to have spare money. I do not think going as far as actually suing the university is likely to be worth the cost in time, money and goodwill, but making noises about doing so may help generate some progress.

This is probably good advice.  But it would be wise to consider the possibility that there is more to the story.  Perhaps Admissions verified that there was a funding contract between the university and the company, but the advisor deliberately did something that caused the contract with the company to be terminated.  In this case enforcing the PhD student's contract would very likely would be the advisor's problem because administration would be mad at the advisor.

@AnonymousPhysicist For each grant, including PhD external funding, Unis in the UK charge their share, called "overheads". The overheads can be as large as half of all funding. These money are researcher's contribution to infrastructure, including labs, toilets, cleaners and - importantly - lawyers. Unis charge researchers to pay professional staff to ensure contracts with funders are rock-solid. Probably, someone in Finance approved the post before money were secured (this should not have happened), because they lacked some important piece of training. Uni should only blame itself for it.

It's one of my nightmares as PI for this to happen. I would try to work with the professor to find a solution. Another professor might have an opening or the school might have some funded PhD positions.
You don't want to go into a PhD position by force. The relationship will be toxic from the beginning. Concerning the contract, I would be very surprised if the university doesn't have an exit clause or a loophole. Universities usually have a big legal department and good experience in building loopholes. It could be something in terms "Position was to work with company X. Since the project didn't go through, the position is redundant". I've heard some pretty creative loopholes over the years.

The PhD is not considered work in the UK, hence a PhD post can't be declared redundant. Students have actually somewhat better protection than staff in the UK (unlike US and some other countries). The relations between Unis and students are heavily regulated and Unis can be fined severely for trying to trick their students in legal matters (not that it does not happen though).

Talk to a lawyer.
This is a dispute regarding a broken contract, which is a legal matter that nobody here is capable of answering - even if someone here was a lawyer, they wouldn't be able to give you legal advice without taking you on a client due to legal ethics. However, a lawyer specializing in UK employment law should be able to advise you on the possible courses of action.
Note that I’m not counselling you to sue, but merely to speak to a lawyer, since they would be able to tell you what your options are.

But Academia is a small world, and this might break bridges...

Not just that academia is a small world, but you are unlikely to have a productive PhD if your supervisor really doesn't want you to be there.

@IanSudbery Although I argued differently above, as advocatus diaboli, it should be clarified that it may be that the supervisor is still happy to supervise if the student merely sues the uni. Just to distinguish the possibilities.

Oddly enough, the university itself might be able to provide you legal advice if the student services office is sufficiently independent.

Talking to a lawyer here is a really, really bad idea.

@TheoreticalMinimum A lawsuit is a headache for everyone. Even if they ultimately sympathize with the student, the department head is going to catch flack for it from the dean and that's all going to trickle down to the professor who they will see as responsible for the whole mess. If the suit is successful, someone will still have to find the money in a pile someplace, probably from a pile that was intended to go to somewhere else, so they also have to deal with the people affected by that.

PhD is not considered an employment in the UK, it's  "training".

Edited my answer because people are talking about lawsuits, when that wasn’t the point of my answer at all.


text:
Is it normal I haven't met my supervisor yet?
I arrived in Montreal on April 3rd, 2020. It was during the coronavirus pandemic and I spent the first half of the summer taking a course with my Supervisor, I got A+.
In the second half of the summer, the University was closed, and I knew my supervisor was on vacation.
After he got back, I asked him a couple of times to meet him because some of the restaurants and cafes got open during summer. so I thought I should meet with him. He a couple of times replied sure and never gave me a date. Then after finishing summer vacation I again asked him and I felt he is kinda like avoiding me.
I'm not sure why. It's getting close to 6 months. Although I got A+ with him I'm not super convinced he is happy with my progress and not only he is not meeting with me.
He is not even following me every 2 weeks or so. I'm kinda abandoned.
So I'm honestly started to get very nervous about my progress.
This semester he didn't even bother to say any comment on my course selection. Whatever I chose he said good and I'm not sure is it normal or not.
Is he trying to get rid of me?

Is this a general academic advisor or a thesis advisor?

Thesis advisor ,

Have you suggested meeting online? When you mention progress, are you already working on a project under his supervision? Is there anything specific you wish to discuss when you meet, and did you make this clear in your requests?

I'm working on his field of study but I'm doing my own research, self-funded, we just meet one time online after I got here, how can I politely request this? whoever I talk to , they say they have a very good relationship with their supervisors, I'm not sure what's wrong ... :(

You could provide an update on your progress (don't wait for him to ask), mention what specific points you want to discuss (e.g. something you'd like feedback on or are stuck on), and suggest having a meeting (include your scheduling constraints so that it is easier to fix a time). Perhaps you have already tried something like this, just in case you haven't.

First off, no - this is not okay or normal. Advisors should meet their advisees on a regular basis. I'd say every other week is the boundary of reasonable (unless of course there are other circumstances like sickness, parental leave, long vacation or sabbatical etc.).
While there are mitigating circumstances (this is 2020 after all), your advisor has a responsibility to you which they need to be reminded of. If they are unable to supervise you for whatever reason, it's still their responsibility to let you know so you can seek alternatives ASAP.
Tell him a series of times that you are available at, as well as deadlines you'd like to meet. Just describe the times you are free during this semester and see when you can schedule video calls. Your advisor might be unready or unprepared for remote advising, but again - welcome to 2020! It's awful in academia now.
To figure out deadlines, work backwards from your desirable date of graduation - in order to graduate at date A you need to submit thesis by B, for which you'll need a first draft by C etc. Then present this to your advisor in the correct chronological order.
Good luck!

Yes to video meet up. No to in person. There is no responsibility for anyone to risk their life for an introduction.

@Buffy well, yes there is. People risk their life by crossing the street, yet they have a responsibility to go to work. And people who cannot work remotely also have the responsibility to go to work. Anyway, this answer does not even say anything about "in person", so I do not understand why your comment talks about "risking lives".

I agree that requesting to meet in person is unreasonable in these times.

That said, what is completely reasonable is to request a time slot for a weekly online meeting on Zoom, Hangouts, Teams, ... That's what the OP should do: Ask what a good time would be to meet on a weekly basis!

@wimi Your comment is inappropriate.

I am not an epidemiologist, so what I suggest that the OP does is follow the rules and guidelines put forth by their university/country, and use their best judgment.


text:
Confused over these terminologies "Dissertation" vs. "Thesis"
I'm a Master's student and I will defend my study in a month. Tomorrow is the deadline to upload my manuscript. The university announced two deadlines a week apart from each other
One for Thesis (Tomorrow)
The other for Dissertation (28th)
My work is done but my Professor is very picky (he changed my subject 3 times) and sorry to say that, couldn't care less (the university let him supervise me from Europe, I'm in Canada!). He asked me to redraw some charts and correct some minor errors. I can do it until the 28th for sure since I was thinking I'm writing a dissertation (my manuscript content is 92 pages).
During all these times, in all forms and all conversations with the university, I always mentioned I'm working on my dissertation and nobody cared to even corrected me. I'm maniaclly searching the website of the university, the guidlines, PDFs, my course on research and scientific methods (even went to check the resources books). There is no place that says thesis is for Master's and dissertation is for PhD.
It seems like everybody should know this. My professor even signed an official letter I wrote to university that I said the word dissertation multiple times, that letter went to the board of directors and even the dean of the unversity and they approved it as well! But again NOBODY said anything.
I'm so tired after 3 years and many sleepless nights, GPA 4, multiple scholarships from Univeristy, 3 A+ and a heart stroke. I want to write something to the University since my professor always runs away to face with university. Do you have any suggestions?
Just days ago from my Professor, funny part is even in this link as you see it says dissertation for Master's
UPDATE: The University accepted without hesitation and I met the deadline and upload my Thesis which I'm really proud of because I put extra effort on every single figure and chapters.
I will defend it in two weeks. Thanks for all of your answers.

The words 'Thesis' and 'Dissertation' are often used interchangeably. There is no universal rule (that I'm aware of) saying one is for PhD and the other is for MSc. As it seems your institution differentiates between the two, probably best to speak with the academic registry (or equivalent) to get the official definition.

why can you not simple call someone at the uni and ask?

They don't answer the phone, The line for international students (English line) are just ringing, tried 10 times in the past. When I go in person, there is a just a low rank employee says send email. Emails get answered almost 6 days later. besides it's summer, Also It"s QUEBEC, A French university with a heavy racist culture that only service to French students. We're peasant in their perspective literally.

If you can't find any info and want to be on the safe side, submitting tomorrow with as much alterations as you can manage seams like the safer way.

and I would try the national phone line as well

One would expect your professor to send you link to university's links: preferably academic regulation, postgraduate guidelines...

In the first semester, I did a notable project, it went in a website and then a famous blog reported it but that blog actually almost (almost) removed our name. not even correctly mentioned us. That very day that my professor said nothing I knew what kind of enviornment I'm dealing with. Just recently I wrote an official letter to Univeristy, Comittee 14, Board of directors, The dean. In that letter, I wrote multiple times dissertation, He didn't even bother to read, and signed it and approved it, Then it went to the University, they even didn't read it as well and approved it !

Thesis and dissertation are used interchangeably. The carry different meanings in different context and countries.
The best bet is to locate the Academic Regulations and look for the section or sub-regulation dealing with research degree examination: For example, McGill's.
Or simply pay the postgraduate research office a visit.

There are many interpretations of the difference between Thesis and Dissertation.

used interchangeably
thesis for Masters, dissertation for doctorate
thesis for research work, dissertation for comprehensive original work
thesis for research only, dissertation for research project component above course work.

In certain places, thesis refers to submitted research work that is based on research only, where there're no course work while dissertation is used in those context/countries as submitted research work that is in partial fulfillment over and above course works. This one sees in places like South Africa.
In the States, it gets interesting as places like GCU and others are of the view that thesis and dissertation are program dependent or that it is a dissertation when a student (orally) defend their research work

[GCU] ... The primary difference between a dissertation vs thesis is the degree programs that require these projects. Students in a master’s degree program will write a thesis, whereas students in a doctoral degree program will complete a dissertation.

It's not uncommon for universities in Canada to use the term Thesis. Even at that, it is loose: used interchangeably.
To compound, take for instance this particular one that is filed as Thesis, yet the abstract says dissertation!

Thesis: Le tissu urbain comme forme culturelle ... ...
Abstract: This dissertation examines the evolution of the urban tissues of Quebec City's "faubourgs." It présents a diachronic ... ...

For McGill, it appears Thesis is for research based masters and it's used for PhD. However, take note of the example above: re interchangeably!.

McGill Thesis FAQ
McGill Regulations Concerning Theses

Yet,the interchangeability persists even with guidelines for dissertation cross-referencing thesis or outcome of thesis examination cross-referencing dissertation!
Another interesting dimension is that the sciences like computer science uses thesis comfortably, while Humanities defer to dissertation.
With all the confusions,

check the university regulations
get confirmation from supervisor/Dean
call the postgraduate research office
physically visit the postgraduate research office (and registry)

For repository of Canadian thesis and dissertation, see Erudit, or CARL, or head to ProQuest. There are others.

It's sad that nobody blames university or supervisor even when he clearly misleaded me a couple of days ago. That just shows why Professor can do the worst things and get away with it !
You know, I'm finaicially good in life, I was here for my passion, I was the guy insisted to my professor that we need to expand this research. I don't want to present something bad. Now, when it's my turn, all the odds are against me. This system is designed this way for reason. Such a life lesson

@KamranAsgari Nobody can judge here about your University or Supervisor, as nobody knows here the facts, only your side. This site is not meant to solve personal issues, but to provide general feedback that fits more than your case. We simply do not answer personal cases.

You're just being politically correct since your feeding from the system but it's okay
I know how to get my own right back
Needed a help in formating an email to univeristy
But you are too much weaker to suggest me that with this attitude

@KamranAsgari No, there are obvious limits to what people on the Internet can do for you.

The university sent an email and said it's okay since they didn't aware of my confusion.


text:
Need a CSL style that uses the month field in Bibtex
I do a lot of academic writing where I need to cite magazine and newspaper articles.  My workflow is to write in Markdown / Org-mode and then export to docx using pandoc.  So I use the citation facility provided by pandoc-citeproc to generate my bibliography from an old BibTex file that I've been using for many years.
I know that standard BibTex doesn't support newspaper articles directly, so for years I've been using the kludge mentioned here and adding the day to the month field.  This has worked fine for several years.  But over the last several months I've been running into problems - the standard default csl format for pandoc-citeproc drops the month field entirely when producing the bibliography.  The same happens with apa.csl, chicago-author-date.csl, and several other styles I've tried from the CSL Library.
I don't want to manually rewrite the hundreds of entries in my BibTex file.  Is there a CSL file that will include the month information in the bibliography entries?  Is there another way to get that information easily?

Perhaps better on a Software Question stack...

@SolarMike - probably true. Any suggestions on which one though? Super User?

Check, you might find one with similar questions or even relevant tags.

Try https://tex.stackexchange.com/


text:
Does how I got my understanding of an article need to be cited?
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I just want to make sure that I’m taking the appropriate steps; I’m a student in University, and I write a lot of essays/reviews throughout the year. I like taking breaks and reading fictional stories to relax, but of course my brain sort of travels a lot to various different places, which includes school related tasks. I wanted to take a break from trying to understand one particular article that I was reviewing, and I only fully realized how the article’s thesis related to its conclusion while I was in the middle of reading one story (I had stopped to process it and I was about to go back into it again). However, it wouldn’t make sense to reference the story in my review, since I didn’t take any information from it, correct?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/142182/will-taking-a-vacation-hurt-your-academic-career-recommendation-letter/142208#142208

Definitely no. I think you know this, but for the benefit of future readers of this post: The purpose of a citation is not to provide a diary of the author's thought process, but rather to acknowledge the prior work done before yours and trace the logic and evidence from which your work follows. It helps no one to know what story you were reading, or whether you had a particularly nice breakfast that stimulated your thoughts. Save it for your blog or your memoirs.

Yes, personal heuristics are seldom useful.

Thank you for answering my question! I really appreciate it, and I apologize for taking this long to answer!

I only fully realized how the article’s thesis related to its conclusion while I was in the middle of reading one story...However, it wouldn’t make sense to reference the story in my
review, since I didn’t take any information from it, correct?

You needn't cite the story, but you could mention it in the acknowledgements, especially if the story hinted at the relation (in some way). Such acknowledgements should probably be included sparingly. For instance, acknowledging your soap manufacturer, because the idea came to you in the shower, doesn't seem particularly noteworthy.* Whilst acknowledging an author for opening a new perspective seems more noteworthy. Ask yourself whether your readers will be intrigued.
*Unless, perhaps, you had just changed soaps and the change in viscosity inspired you to adapt your experiment (in a similar fashion) leading to success.

Oh, good idea. Never seen that in Acknowledgements.

I’m sorry it took so long to reply, but thank you for answering my question, I really appreciate it!


text:
How to improve the skill at storytelling and paper writing?
I have come to see a comment on twitter: "If you define “good ML paper” as “ML paper accepted at NeurIPS/ICML/etc” then writing a good ML paper is probably much more about how skilled you are at storytelling and paper writing than about ML." This comment is about Machine Learning (ML) and the comment is someone's opinion. My question is more general, how to improve the writing skill for scientific papers?
It would be great if someone can answer in Machine learning and NeurIPS/ICML perspective.

Some personal perspectives to advise you (or others who read this question later).  Please don't take the writing of this post as perfect as it is hard to proof things in comment box. Do as I say not as I do!  (That said, I have gotten 6 first authored papers, all of my academic papers, published without any revision at ACS specialty journals...so there is some "I have been there".)

Most of the skill (or problems depending on your point of view) is applicable across writing in general or at least science/engineering/math writing in general.  You are savvy to look for ML specific issues, but 90%+ of how to write a good paper would be the same in physics, chemistry, statistics, medicine, or even business.
I agree with the Buffy comments on "practice".
One slight note for anyone who is non-native speaker is to work on your English.  Your (personal) English comes across as quite good (you may be a native speaker).  But I am really addressing others who may read this who are outside the Anglosphere, publishing in it, or who are foreign grad students.  English is the "lingua franca" (sorry France) of academia.  Don't let that hold you back.  But plunge in, in all of your daily life, into use of English (languages get better from use...be the machine learner that just jumps in, not hesitant.)  That said, when submitting papers, first do your absolute best (not slack), than have an English speaker review.  It is VERY common for papers from certain countries to have poor English. This is frustrating for reviewers since the content itself is difficult AND may have science flaws.  Weeding through that along with Chi...bad English is a hassle.
Feedback:  Agree with the Buff comment.  But would just add you will get differing opinions at time.  And experience differing levels of insight from people.  Use your noodle to differentiate when there are conflicts.  90%+ of the time, advice will be similar, especially on basic topics.  But there will be differences.  Don't let it fluster you.
You are right to want to write well.  I had very middle of the road results in noteworthiness, but I wrote clearly.  And my papers sailed through.  Make it easy.  Let this be a life lesson.  Same thing applies in the work world.
References:  I don't know the "how to write a paper" books. I'm sure they are mostly OK.  But I will share a few gems that helped me.  Google them.
a.  Katzoff Clarity in Technical Reporting.  Short NASA pamphlet.  Underground gem that I encountered at Langley.  Very practical and researcher to researcher in tone.  Free on the web.  In particular, read his section on "honesty".
b.  E. Bright Wilson Introduction to Scientific Research.  Great advice on writing up incomplete work.  It is not sleazy.  It is your duty!  Somebody paid for that stuff.  Don't be a tree in the forest.  [Ignore the issue that this book is from the 50s.  The lessons are universal.  And you should learn to be able to extract lessons in old books, not put off by anachronisms.  At least the writing is not hard to read...just it will hurt you when he talks about ENIAC or the like.]
c.  Strunk and White Elements of Style.  Everyone recommends this.  To the extent that I'm sure there are reactions against it.  But it gets recommended for good reasons.  Short, sweet.  Lots of practical word choice advice.  And "omit needless words" is a great philosophy.  Very cheap...buy a copy.  Get exposed.
d.  Barbara Minto Pyramid Principle.  There are a couple versions but they are very similar.  Ignore where she tries to say she invented something or plays on the McKinsey association.  But pay attention to the advice on lists and hierarchical structures.
e.  Little Red Schoolhouse (writing advice).  This one may be hard to find...sorry don't have copy to hand...typing in a ba...cafe.  And I got my copy by Xoxing one from a Uni Chicago B school student.  But it is a gem, gem, GEM.  Key point is to try not to use nominalizations (Google this word) as subjects and use clear actors instead.  "Bartenders measure how much booze to pour carefully."  Not "The practice of rigorous mensuration...".  Capisce the difference?
f.  Warriner (Harcourt Brace) English Grammar and Composition.  Just a simple reference for when to put a comma in or not (and such like).  Very user friendly.  Written for high school students.  Easier than more complicated style guides or grammar texts.
Practical advice (may duplicate some from references):
a.  Avoid long paragraphs.  This shi...stuff is hard enough.  Don't write monograph style walls of text.  Keep the paras under 150 words.  Seven sentences max (five if the sentences are very complex/long).  This is not some mathematical "rule" and I'm sure someone will disagree in comments.  But it is practical advice.
Ideally the paras should have unified topics.  But if it gets too long in one para find/devise/create a reason to break into two (or three!) paras.
b. Separate chemical or math formulas with line breaks and centering.  They are too hard to process in line in normal text.
c. Figure captions are some of the most important text in a paper.  I am a fan of longer captions.  Hone them and don't use needless words.  But tell as much of the story as you can in captions.  People read graphs and captions MUCH more than rest of the paper.  Captions are PRIME REAL ESTATE.
d.  References:  Check every citation personally.  If it is a journal article make a photocopy and keep it on file (helps for your research itself).  It is very frustrating to look for a reference and find it is wrong.  Or even that it doesn't pertain (this can happen when people copy errors forward in a lab group).
e.  Journal instructions:  Get a copy of the notice to authors (usually in first calendar year issue of the journal).  Look at every instruction and check it personally.  Like a machine. Like a nuclear technician.  You would be amazed how many people don't do this...and how much it helps make a paper slide by easier.
For references, use whatever scheme is particular for the journal (they are all different).  If you use a bibliography program, check the results personally.  Errors can happen.  In the grand scheme of things...it doesn't matter and/or hopefully the copy editor finds it.  That said, it is something under your control.  Get it done.  That way people can concentrate on the science, not the format (since you are so gnat's ass perfect in format!)
f.  Use spell check.  And when you make any edits use it again!  This sounds silly.  But you would be amazed how often people neglect it (even in the work world).  Have a PAPER dictionary next to you to check on words that spellcheck highlights falsely.  (Merriam Webster collegiate, hardbound, is a good choice).  Of course use the net to check words still of concern (especially proper nouns) in addition.
g.  Getting traction. I had a quite shrewd professor advise me to write the figures first and the abstract last.  This is sound advice in a fashion but I realized it is WRONG.  Write in whatever fashion gets you MOVING.  In the modern world of computers, it is very easy to edit later (as opposed to when people had typists).  My advise is to put the title of the paper down and the major sections (with NO CONTENT) and then hit "save".  Guess what!?  You are started now.  Then write whatever comes easiest.  If "abstract" is easier to write now, write it now.  You can revise it later.  I have even written up most of a paper and then just had a couple gaps.  And the momentum and such moved me to do the final regression (or even the final physical experiment!)

Good luck.  Kick ass.  Have fun.  "No prisoners!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m7cSALYOBM

As with most skills, both physical and intellectual, the key is practice and feedback. To be a better swimmer, swim a lot. To excel at it, get a coach who can give you feedback.
The same is true of writing and many other things. To be a better writer, simply, write. But the feedback is also important so find a way to get that. You will get it from referees when you submit papers, but you can also get it less formally if you share drafts among colleagues. If you are a student, you probably get feedback from professors, but ask them to comment on your writing specifically, not just your ideas.
There are, of course, books and such to help you be a better writer. Their advice may be helpful: Keep the reader in mind; Be correct but not pedantic; the opening should entice the reader to continue...
But the books won't make you a writer (or a swimmer). Just write.
And get feedback.

Thanks. I got a paper rejected last year November and reviewer said the paper is poorly written (the venue is prestigious and I think my writing is still not up to the standard). That's all I got from the reviewer about writing, certainly, that is not very helpful feedback. If I was told why it is poorly written then it would make more sense to me and would help me improve writing.

My advisor was happy with the writing. That is why I was confused about that comment. I do understand that paper reviewing is a labour intensive and time-consuming task. I am not complaining about the review. I just want to get more robust feedback that will help me improve further.

Then you need to consider if your advisor's writing is up to scratch... There are several academics that I know, who have English as a second language and struggle to produce linguistically polished papers, while technically they are beyond reproach... So, is this question really about your rejected paper then?

@Buffy, I like when you said "Be correct but not pedantic; the opening should entice the reader to continue... ". This is useful.

@SolarMike, this question is more about improving my writing. English is my second language and working every day to improve the writing skill. Getting expert advice always helps.

@SolarMike  Regarding the rejection on poor writing, I had a native English speaker (another PhD student) to read my paper before the submission and incorporated all the comments he gave me in the paper.

@FarhanaLiza It can be difficult to correct mediocre structure compared to writing well from scratch, it may not be his fault...

@SolarMike, sure, that's the point, I need to improve the writing skill and that is the only solution.

@FarhanaLiza Best suggestion I was given was to read books from those who write well... And one example has always stuck in my mind, from a book about writing technical reports, which compared a paragraph written by Winston Churchill and a paragraph written by a person in the Tax Office... One was so clear, with no wasted words and the other...

@SolarMike, maybe necessary, but not sufficient. I don't get to be a better tennis player by watching Serena Williams. I have to practice.

@Buffy so how are you getting on? When are you entering? Also consider the quality of the feedback, one issue is there are many native speakers of English, but there are native speakers and native speakers...

I think @SolarMike's advice should say "read [works] by people who write well and imitate them."


text:
Do minors and/or non-major courses affect grad school admissions?
Basically what it says in the heading, lengthy explanation below
At my university, just completing your major and general ed courses won't get you enough credits to graduate. This means that we have to either complete a minor (6 courses) or just take courses from other fields. Up until now I have just been taking courses that I thought were interesting, in a variety of fields, none of which have much, if anything, to do with my major (which is psychology).
Minors don't show on the degree certificate - they're technically unofficial and you can only tell by going through the transcript that somebody's completed one. Al
the only two fields available at my university that have any real connection to psych are bio and computer science. The bio curriculum has next to nothing to do with psych though, except two courses which I am taking anyway. Judging from my experience in high school, I have no aptitude and not too much interest in CS. I could get a minor in sociology, which I do enjoying, but I don't plan to pursue social psych later on.
I'm sorry this has been so long. Basically, would it be advisable to minor in something related to psychology in order to boost my chances at grad school? Or is it okay if I finish my psychology requirements and electives and then just take other courses that I find interesting?
I'm an undergraduate, currently in the middle of my second year, so I still have time to finish a minor before I graduate and I'm very confused about everything.

Can you use those credits to take additional psychology courses?

I don't think most schools will know or care about the nuances of the Sahana U minor system.  Ergo, do what you want.
Since many schools don't require a minor at all, they won't worry about if you do the extra classes in history or math or basketweaving.  They will just look to see that you are a psych major, what GPA you have, standardized test scores, essay, letter.
It's extremely unlikely that the content of those 6 diversification courses will affect any decisions.  Just concentrate on doing well with whatever you do.  And take what you like.  The major is already covering key content needed for grad school.

To provide an anecdote, the Ph.D student who supervised me during my undergrad work as a psych major got admitted to the program because he minored in computer science and the professor needed someone computer savvy to help set up the lab he was starting up. I'm not saying he didn't deserve the spot, but I know other people who had also applied and they had far more expertise and experience in clinical psychology.
Whether your minor can contribute to the strength of your application depends on whether it can be used to make a strong case for your candidacy. For example, if you were applying to specialize in cognitive psychology or artificial intelligence, a minor in computer science might help depending on the content of your planned research. If it adds nothing to your case, then it's probably not worth it.
A stronger factor would be research and field experience outside of or in excess of what is required by your program. They serve as further evidence that you can not only hit the ground running but also be a contributing asset to the department you are applying to. Because I am currently the head of our lab, the professor consults with me before accepting new students to make sure they are a good fit and would work well in this environment, and what we look for is working knowledge of research procedures, capacity for working with others, problem solving abilities, and familiarity with academic settings. Academic excellence is a given so we basically skim it to look for any Bs or Cs, it's really about undergraduate/masters research and field experience. We also follow up on rec letters to get additional details.
How my university and my professor handles admissions is certainly not universal, and every university and department obviously have their own standards. So whether your minor will help or not certainly varies depending on the situation. If you know that doing your minor will help you in the area you intend to research, or you simply find that field of study interesting regardless, feel free to do your minor. If not, I would recommend investing that time in your studies or extracurricular activities.


text:
How to write an Statement Of Purpose for Masters' in Computer Science given it covers a broad range of topics?
All the guidelines for writing a Statement of Purpose emphasize on how you need to properly explain why you would like to pursue an Master's in the specific branch along with proper examples
However, a Master's in Computer Science is a very vast branch. So how do you mention that you want to do a Master's in Computer Science with examples to explain why when every example in itself will talk about some specialization or another?

I suggest that you think, and write, more generally. Don't emphasize that you want to learn topic X and Y and Z. Think about why you want to learn this stuff and how you intend to capitalize on that in the future. Think about your career plans (your long-term purpose).
If you have already determined a narrow specialty, which is probably uncommon for a masters applicant, then you can focus somewhat on that, but the why of it all and the future goals are probably more important. It is also more likely that it is that the admissions committee is looking for.
Long term, not so much short term goals.

It really depends on where you are applying to. Many schools have major groups, e.g., theory, AI, bioinformatics, HCI, etc. In my 15 years of experience in and with grad-schools (CS and areas around), the best is to narrow down on one or two of these major areas. It would make sense to explain why you like these areas, for example, through projects you did during your internships, or courses A, B, C. Next provide a very brief description of work you have done that have been interesting to you. You can find tones of good samples of SoPs through grad school websites for high-rank universities, possibly even the specific universities you plan to apply to.


text:
Failed the preliminary PhD exam because the committee members rejected my already accepted publication
My paper got accepted in a very high-ranking peer-reviewed conference and will be published in the proceedings. However, my university PhD committee members are saying it is ‘weak’ and they did not accept that as one of the required publications for PhD, so I failed the preliminary exam. How should I deal with this situation?
EDIT: I am taking the doctoral course at a Japanese university. My academic advisor, unfortunately, will not be of help in this regard, as we are not on good terms (I guess he gave up on me once I mentioned I might not proceed the academic career, so it was partially my mistake).
One paper about an experiment I conducted has been chosen for publication in conference proceedings of an internationally high-ranking university, but the committee and my advisor chose to evaluate it as insufficient nonetheless.
I have two more papers with a high probability of getting published (final stages of the reviwing process), but due to the pandemic situation the review process is taking longer.
The official rules mention only that the thesis should be partially be published in national or international peer-reviewed journals, but do not say how many articles are required, and if they should be already accepted at the preliminary exam, or when I hand in the thesis.
Usually there should be a way to retake the preliminary exam, but my academic advisor did not make any such offers, instead recommended to leave this university and try my luck at another one.
Could anybody tell me if there is a possibility to retake the exam and apply for my Ph.D. at the same university, or what the necessary steps would be to apply for the degree at a different university (Japanese or otherwise)?
Any help would be much appreciated.

What does your advisor think?

What do the official rules say about required publications and criteria?

Congrats for your peer-reviewed paper. Could you share some details about the requirements for the preliminary exam? Also, will you have another chance to validate the requirements for the preliminary exam, or do you have to leave the program due to this?

You might want to mention country, as the procedures are very different in different places.

Did your commitee say what you should do next?

Thank you all for your comments. Your help is much appreciated. I provided additional information in my post.

What field? ...

I don't see how you can resolve the issue about this paper without addressing the issue of not being on good terms with your advisor. Finding a student is not planning to continue in academia can certainly be disappointing for academic advisors, but the reality is most students will not get academic jobs so ceasing to be a source of advice is not a reasonable response. Besides that I don't know nearly enough about the Japanese system to write a full answer. In the US in my field anyways, if an advisor thinks a student should graduate they almost always do; if not, then usually not.

Can't believe things works like this to get a PhD in Japan. Not to say I don't believe OP, but that I am more than surprised. A publish to PhD rule is reasonable, but why to be kicked out instead of completing the publication process of two papers? Ps a proceeding might be not enough, no matter the conference.

The advice to find a different university is probably the best you will get. The standards of the committee are apparently very high, as one would expect.
You could appeal to your advisor or to the committee, but it seems doubtful that any other action would work. Even an appeal to higher authority at the university might result in bad feelings that won't help you get your degree.
See if you can salvage good recommendations from this mess and find a way to move on. It isn't the end of the world. Many students change universities mid-stream.
I actually left one program in a somewhat similar situation: a dispute over a single answer on a prelim exam. I wound up at a better university with a much better advisor.


text:
Does waiting a few years before pursuing a PhD affect chances of getting admitted?
This is a somewhat long question. I hope you can take the time to read it carefully.
I obtained my bachelor's degree in physics in June 2019. I decided I wanted to go to physics graduate school in the USA after finishing my undergraduate degree, however I noticed I was not going to be a strong candidate because I only had one letter of recommendation, had very little experience doing research, and had never published a paper. Hence, I decided to postpone my application and work with physicists to do research. Since I come from a place where research opportunities are scarce, I decided to contact researchers from the USA to work with them. It was really hard to get a response from them, but finally I got a response from two very good physicists from UC Santa Cruz and Georgetown. I am currently working with one of them and there's a possibility to publish an article by the end of this year's  Fall. The other physicist advised me not to work with the two of them at the same time, as I might become overwhelmed by the amount of work from both projects. So he told me that it was my decision if I wanted to apply this year or wait until the next year. He said to me that if I waited one more year to apply, we would work together on a project and he claimed that we would publish a paper together by the end of Fall 2021.
My dilemma is that if I wait one more year I would be older and when I start my phd, three years will have passed since I graduated from college. However, if I wait one more year I will have one more letter of recommendation and one more paper published (which would probably make me a stronger candidate).
My question is the following: is it a better idea to wait one more year considering that I can get all the things I mentioned before? Or, does waiting this amount of time affect my chances of being admitted?
I graduated from a 4-year physics program at the age of 22 (I'm 23 now).

What are the arguments against applying this year? Nothing stops you re-applying next year if you don't get an offer that you are happy to accept.

@avid I was thinking what you suggest, but I have to pay application fees for every time I apply and will have to spend most of the money I saved during college in one application cycle. Since choosing the right place to pursue a PhD is really important, I would like to study in a good university, but based on my current research experience and lack of good letters of recommendation I find it hard to achieve.

Does this answer your question? How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?

The number of years since your bachelors just isn't that important compared to the quality of work you have done.  In some cases industry experience is valued.

@AnonymousPhysicist The question you pointed out does not really answer my question. My main question was if waiting a few years after completing my bachelors could be detrimental to my application. You and Allure below have already provided me a good answer.

@EduardoMunguia I didn't post that.  It's an automated message.

Waiting can negatively affect your chances of admission if you aren't doing academia-related things: for example, if you quit to join industry for 3 years, then when you get around to applying your letter writers might not remember you that well anymore (they might even have died/retired/resigned), which will have a negative impact.
What you are doing, on the other hand, will not negatively affect your chances - in fact you are likely to improve your chances. You are after all getting more/better letters of recommendations & publications, two key aspects to an application.


text:
What is the difference between academic and business registration when applying to conferences?
I have been trying to register for a conference abroad and it is my first time to do so.
So I wanted to ask what they mean by academic or business registration when applying.

Well, are you attending as an academic or on behalf of a business? Any distinction they make is totally up to them.

Academic conferences, such as those sponsored by ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) are primarily for academics (faculty) and students. However, some business researchers also attend (IBM, Google, ...) and may, in principle, pay a different rate (higher). Some others, such as book sellers also attend, looking both for sales and for authors working on textbooks and such. At some conferences, governmental researchers also attend and might be considered academics or not.
Conferences are expensive to run, so those that have the most financial backing (for-profit business) might be expected to pay more. Students usually get a discount and might be able to attend for free, though as volunteers in the running of the conference.

Just to be sure it is understood: "Academics" in this context means students or people working for academic institutions, such as universities or research institutes. Students sometimes have their own category.

@Snijderfrey, yes, students qualify as do faculty. For "Research Institutes" there may be a difference for governmental, non-profit, for-profit, etc. depending on the individual rules.

so do you mean if Iam a doctor(Physician) attending a medical conference then I should choose Academic not Business ?

@JanBarengy, that isn't quite the same. Ask the conference committee. There are too many possibilities. Medical conferences may be a special case and there might be varieties of them.


text:
About Hindawi Publishing Group and its merging with Wiley
For a long time, Hindawi journals had a semi-good reputation in my field. Many Hindawi journals used to be on Beall's list in the past. With the merging with Wiley, however, Hindawi now also falls under the DEAL agreement, making it more attractive for many researchers that are short on open access funding (including me). Finding information on the current reputation of Hindawi on the internet is difficult and many discussion in various forums stem from the years 2016 - 2019. May I ask whether the merging with Wiley may increase the reputation of Hindawi and could potentially influence the overall quality/merit of their journals?

Project DEAL is a thing in Germany, is it relevant for other counties, too?

@Snijderfrey I am sorry, I did not clarify. As far as I am concerned, it is a Germany-specific consortium. DEAL allows you to publish OA in Wiley / Springer / BMC journals - paid by the corresponding author's institution.

Over the last year or so, there have been several reports of problems with Hindawi's peer-review process, particularly for special issues, which have been targeted by papermills. See for example this blog post dated March 30, 2023 from Scholarly Kitchen:

As explained in detail by Retraction Watch, Hindawi’ Guest Editor model was exploited by paper mills, leading to more than 500 retractions from November 2022 to March 2023. In a random sample of 20 retracted articles, half of them were submitted in 2021, meaning that the paper mills were at work as soon as Hindawi ventured into the Guest Editor model.
The timing was most unfortunate for Wiley, which acquired Hindawi in January 2021 for the hefty price of $298m. In response to the paper mills, Wiley not only retracted the articles of concern, but also paused Hindawi’s Guest Editor program, resulting in a $9m decline in quarterly revenue, which is expected to reach $30m for the full year. As soon as the results were announced, Wiley’s stock value dropped by 17% to its lowest level since 2009 (except for a year-long slump during COVID). The decline translates to a $420m reduction in market capitalization.
...
Last week, Clarivate announced the removal of more than 50 journals from the Web of Science, including 19 journals from Hindawi. The delisting came after Wiley announced its Q3 results, and its repercussions may not have been fully appreciated by analysts, given that Wiley’s stock value did not drop any further.

More recent coverage on RetractionWatch.com includes the removal of Hindawi's Mathematical Problems in Engineering from a Norwegian register of scientific journals, as well as Wiley and Hindawi to retract 1,200 more papers for compromised peer review.
My interpretation is that Wiley is trying to improve the processes and quality of Hindawi. In the long-term this may improve the reputation of Hindawi journals. However, at least in the short-term it has exposed lots of issues and, as far as I can tell, lowered the reputation. Whether this is a temporary effect from swallowing the bitter pill or a more lasting effect remains to be seen.

On Dec 6, 2023, Wiley announced they will be sunsetting the Hindawi brand and plan to integrate Hindawi journals under the Wiley banner during 2024. See reporting by Retraction Watch or slides and transcript from an earnings call. Presumably, this move is intended to help shield the less recognized journal titles from negative connotations with the Hindawi brand.

@ Anyon   Where could I find the names of these 50 journals? I have read this number at several homepages but have not encountered a precise list.

@Dr.M This page claims to have the full list: https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/web-of-science-de-listed-82-journal-including-15-from-hindawi RetractionWatch has a list of the affected titles they identified at https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/21/nearly-20-hindawi-journals-delisted-from-leading-index-amid-concerns-of-papermill-activity/

@Anyon's answer is pretty good from a big picture perspective. I will say, from my personal experience, the papers I have read from Hindawi almost as a rule are...not good. I think Wiley will have an uphill battle cleaning up Hindawi's portfolio. Even if they shutter the most egregious journals/retract the most suspect papers, the reputation will not change overnight. And they can't go back and retract every subpar paper.
Many of the journals that were not outright predatory are just not great - the ones that are good I think are the exception. Those are the journals that are likely to come out the other end more "prestigious" now that they are tied to Wiley. The other journals still are low impact, have questionable papers, and are just not super desirable. Truthfully, I think most of the okayish journals (that will soon ditch the Hindawi brand) will stay just okayish, at least for now. Hopefully there won't be a question about whether they are predatory though...
So to answer your question directly, eventually. But probably not in a predictable way and probably not overnight. Especially since so much has come to light since the merger that might have been only suspected prior.

May I ask how the following: How would you explain why Wiley actively transfers journal to Hindawi. To me, that is contradictory to your comments.

I have no idea. I'm not sure it contracts my comments though. Wiley is trying to increase their market share - they didn't buy Hindawi out of the goodness of their hearts. Cleaning up the portfolio is a means to an end I suspect and not the primary goal of the acquisition.


text:
Would it be appropriate to consider applying to a new graduate program as a five-year/dual degree program student?
I am not sure if students who have deferred from graduate programs tell the school that they no longer can or will be attending?
I've been accepted into a BA/MA program where I am talking credits which will be counted towards the second half of the program. Since I am still a considered as a resident of my undergraduate institution, we are considered students who have "deferred."
I just learned about a Ph.D. program that would provide full funding for students as well as a stipend for housing (of course, this is only for the first year--funding will decrease over the years, but I think this may give me a chance to get a job to pay off the costs). These are two issues that I have been considering for the second year of the  dual degree program. I am pretty much secure in the first year because I am still receiving funding as an undergraduate student; however, in the second year I will be subject to tuition, housing costs, etc like a graduate student. I have accepted that. However, after learning about the Ph.D. program, I want to consider applying. Is it possible or worth it?

Who is going to stop you? If it makes financial sense then then answer is obviously yes, it is worth it.