text:
What are the pros and cons of being co-supervised?
Are there any advantages or disadvantages in having two supervisors instead of one? Why would a graduate student want to do this or avoid this?
The context is in an MA where students usually have one supervisor and two committee members (examiners).

In my (interdisciplinary) field, you are actually required to have a supervisor from the general field and a co-supervisor from your specialisation for your masters.

I am actually a bit surprised that your university doesn't enforce a system with multiple supervisors. Here we always have at least 2 (typically 3) supervisors. One is the head supervisors and responsible for the progress of the student, while the others typical advise on technical parts and learn how to supervise. Considering that we have lost supervisors from the university with very little warning (cancer and a boating accident) recently I wouldn't feel very comfortable if my whole project depended on a single supervisor. The bus factor is very real.

@pehrs: "responsible for the progress of the student" - this strikes me as odd. Why would anyone beside the student themselves be responsible for their progress?

@pehrs: All regulations I am aware of prescribe two supervisors de jure – but there usually is only one de facto supervisor, who does the vast majority of the supervising. I understood this question here that the asker is trying to decide between having two de facto supervisors and having one de facto supervisor.

Are supervisors "de jure" related to "committee members"? Where I am, we normally have one supervisor but two other professors sitting on a committee.

Matthew 6:24 seems relevant here...

@O.R.Mapper Here the head supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the student is working and making progress so that the student finishes before the (rather generous) timelimit. This is to prevent situations where a student is left in limbo, not making progress towards their degree for long periods of time.

@Emilie: Sounds like more or less the same thing.

@pehrs: Interesting. I am more used to regulations where no-one beside the student themselves has to ensure that (fixed) deadlines are met, and hence one of the aspects that the eventual degree certifies is that the student is capable of self-organization and time-management without any outside help. I'd be kind of surprised if this goal were not at least implicitly intended by a university.

@Wrzlprmft: I agree the definition of supervisor should probably be clarified - I'm not sure whether that is what Emilie is referring to, but I have most commonly encountered situations in which students being supervised (i.e. usually writing a Bachelor or Master thesis) had one or more "supervisors" (postdocs, or more commonly doctoral candidates), who were the ones defining the task and keeping in close touch with the students (e.g. by means of weekly progress report meetings), and one or more "examiners" (= "committee members"?), i.e. professors who greenlight the task in the ...

... beginning and grade the thesis in the end, based on what was submitted, and also based on reports by the "supervisors". Not sure which kind of "supervisor" is referred to here.

@O.R.Mapper: I have a feeling that the difference is more in the way I express things than how it actually works. What happens if a student doesn't self-organize and manage time in a reasonable way in that system? Who is responsible for tracking the progress of the student and stepping in if things don't work? Here those tasks fall on the main supervisor, and I am pretty sure you have that monitoring function in some way...

@pehrs: Why should anyone "step in"? Sure, if a supervisor is forthcoming, they may occasionally remind the student that it's a good idea to make some more progress, but ultimately, it's no-one's but the student's own responsibility to actually get done within the time limit. If a student doesn't self-organize and manage time, they fail. Simple as that.

@O.R.Mapper: Because a PhD is an education, and it is a huge waste of time and money for everybody involved when PhD students fails? And the most costly kind of failure are the students who linger at the university, consuming grants, supervisor time, lab space and so on for years without making progress? I think any sane university should have rules to ensure staff steps in and either helps the student make progress, or fires the student if they are unable to make progress.

@pehrs: First, we were talking about Master/Bachelor students, not PhD candidates, right? Second, any such theses (including the PhD thesis) are like (prolonged) exams. If your only goal is saving time and money, you could just as well provide students with the correct solutions during exams, because any student who fails an exam is a waste of time and money. Of course, you don't do that, because the point of an exam is for the student to show they are capable of meeting the requirements on their own. Third, yes, the student gets "fired" if they don't make progress. Just what I was saying :)

Pros:

If one supervisor gets hit by a bus, you still have a second supervisor who is familiar with your work and can thus give constructive comments on it, hopefully appreciate it and in particular evaluate it. Often, your supervisor is the only person at your university who is actually capable of fully understanding and properly judging your thesis and defense.
If one supervisor turns bad or turns out to be bad and for example gives bad advice, makes ridiculous demands or even expects you to do questionable things, you can still turn to the other supervisor for advice or to have a serious word with the bad supervisor. If the relationship to the bad advisor goes totally awry, you may have the option to drop them and be supervised by the other supervisor alone.

It depends:

You may be expected to do more or less work. For example, if you are doing an interdisciplinary work and have one supervisor from each discipline, the supervisors may only understand and value the work you do in their respective half and thus think that you did not do enough. On the other hand, they may also overestimate the work in the respective other half and thus be more easily satisfied.
You can benefit from the experience of both supervisors and learn something from one advisor that you cannot learn from the other.

Cons:

You may be affected by disputes between the supervisors. For example the first supervisor may tell you to do something in a certain way and then the second supervisor blames you for it.
If aspects of your work require input from both advisors, you may need to wait not only for one supervisor to have time for you but for two. This is in particular difficult, if you need to talk about something with both your supervisors at the same time.

Some of the above obviously depends on the details of the relationships between your supervisors and the reason for the co-supervision. Thus, you can only judge yourself, if these points apply to your case and how important they are for you.

The "bus factor" also helps you have two knowledgeable references who could write recommendations instead of one. If you're at a doctorate-granting institution, Masters students may not get much specific attention except from their official supervisors.

I was co-supervised (one of my supervisors was the former supervisor of the other supervisor, making me my own academic uncle) and also want to do a pro and con list:
Pros:

When one supervisor was away, the other might still be available. So I probably got more supvision than I would have otherwise.
I could complain about one supervisor to the other if things were going badly.
I got two slightly different points of view on everything I did, which was certainly valuable.

Cons:

One of them left part-way through my thesis and I was not allowed to switch universities, even though I was mostly working with the one who left by that stage.

Wrzlprmft's answer is very detailed, and this just serves as my personal experience (since I am doing just this: my Master thesis is supervised by 2 tutors with similar application areas).

If one supervisor gets hit by a bus, you still have a second supervisor who is familiar with your work and can thus give constructive comments on it, hopefully appreciate it and in particular evaluate it. Often, your supervisor is the only person at your university who is actually capable of fully understanding and properly judging your thesis and defense.

This! It is not uncommon for STEM PhD students to do internships or a semester abroad at another institution (this actually happened to one of the supervisors at the middle of my thesis). Having 2 supervisors just gives you the chance to present with the one remaining.

You can benefit from the experience of both supervisors and learn something from one advisor that you cannot learn from the other.

As far as why one would go to the extra trouble of having 2 supervisors think of it as follows: you are able to learn from different PhD students, that can have slightly different fields.
In my personal case, one of them is clearly more into physics and engineering concepts and prototyping, while the other is very knowledgeable in computer simulations, programming, etc. This definitely helps!

My piece of advice after having done such a project is (as in most project management):

Try weekly/biweekly meetings where everyone is present.
Send important updates/pdfs or questions via email with everyone as CC. (Keep in mind to address in the email if you need an answer of supervisor X, as people tend to feel less obligated with this approach)

Best of luck in your project.

I was co-advised by two people with quite different backgrounds. In my experience, some of the pros were:

Crosstraining across disciplines. My two PhD advisors were trained in computer science and chemistry, respectively. I think of this as having two main sub-benefits:

You can work on problems for which fewer other people have the appropriate training, which can set your work apart and differentiate you as a scholar from others.
You can get a more diverse skill set, which can serve you well both inside and outside of academic research.

Access to two different people's professional networks (potentially even in different areas).
Experience with different interpersonal styles, styles of leadership, and research philosophies.

Some of the cons were:

Double the time spent in and preparing for meetings!
More difficulty scheduling. In my experience, difficulty of scheduling scales exponentially, not linearly, with the number of professors you need to get in the same room.
Competing priorities. Different advisors will have different ideas of what's interesting or worth following up on. You need to make sure everyone is on the same page about what direction your research should be taking.
(Probably) a longer duration of training. Interdisciplinary work can be really rewarding, but it can also mean that both you AND your mentors will be working outside of their respective comfort zones. You can't just rely on what's within a single prof's wheelhouse. Of course it depends on the project and the person, but if, say, you wanted to do a US-style PhD and were dead set on getting out in just 4-5 years, I'd suggest choosing a single advisor instead of two.

There are cases where the situation is actually neutral, that is, there are no particular pros or cons. Two supervisors come out naturally when there is an on-going collaboration between two groups, and the candidate starts working within this collaboration, or when the candidate is going to work in a non-academic institution and needs an academic supervisor too.
Typically, in the above cases, if the collaborations are well established, things go on smoothly, and the candidate hardly notices that she/he has two supervisors. Sometimes, one of the two supervisors can follow more closely the candidate, while the other can have more bureaucratic functions.

To add to the list of advantages: If the first supervisor is close to where you work, they may provide frequent and hands-on advice. If the other supervisor is a big shot who flies in only once or twice and writes one of the reports, they can bolster your reputation and write a positive letter of recommendation.
(I know this isn't how academia should work if it were an ideal meritocracy, but in the real world where power and ties matter, this is how it does work, especially in more conservative countries.)


text:
Is it inappropriate to use school-provided remote learning tools to pursue friendship or relationship with another student?
Note: I am currently not enrolled in any courses, whether remote or in-person. This question is based on a post I saw a couple days ago on Reddit where someone asked a similar question.
Now that distance learning is quite commonplace among both secondary schools and higher learning institutes due to COVID, there isn't as much of a possibility for students to approach each other outside of class hours in an attempt to hang out together or get romantically involved, as quite frequently happened in the pre-COVID days.
My question is whether it would be considered inappropriate for a student to use private chat options on whichever platform the school provides for distance learning to contact another student for explicitly non-education related companionship, assuming the contact happens during moments where such contact would happen on campus, like between scheduled classes or during pair activities. The intent is to use the private chat options to send communications that would otherwise be done at school outside of class hours, with no real distinction between asking your best friend if they want to play some Fortnite after school and asking that cute girl in one of your classes whether she would want to go have a drink with you after school.

Are you thinking about already established contacts (of which you might not have a phone number or email address), or contacting people that you haven't talked to before?

@Mark Both, actually. The intent is to use the private chat options to send communications that would otherwise be done at school outside of class hours, with no real distinction between asking your best friend if they want to play some Fortnite after school and asking that cute girl in one of your classes whether she would want to go have a drink with you after school.

If it’s talking to an already established friend, it’s probably understood that this will happen. If it’s used to initiate a new friendship (in particular of possibly romantic nature), I would find it probably creepy. I could even see situations where it gets you into trouble.

There is a fine line between chatting and stalking. Best to use non-school related tools and take No to mean No.

I think there are two questions here: (1) Is it okay (towards the school) to use learning chat for non-academic issue. (2) Is it okay towards other students to get contacted? I'd say (1) yes, if not so much and used reasonably, (2) I don't know.

As an aside, as we have seen in the news recently: WIth school-provided tools,  you should expect that the school can see what you do; or even that whatever you do is automatically reported to the school.

For already established contacts, there should not be any problem. Same when you ask a group of known and new people (e.g. the general group chat), whether they want to do something together (which might not be the best idea at the moment, but I hope you get what I mean).
Contacting specific people that are not your friends might be a different story, especially if your approach might not be desired. If you go this way I would be very careful in how you are approaching someone, especially if it is, or can be perceived as such, of romantic nature. One way to go could be to start out with asking if the other person is okay with being contacted by you for private matters at all in this system.
However, I would suggest to try social media instead. Or ask common friends/acquaintances for a contact - the way we did it before social media existed. Again, of course, nice and respectful.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Difference in approach when reviewing papers vs grants
Normally, we begin our experiences as peer-reviewers by answering request from journals and conferences to review papers. In these cases, all the details are included and the quality of the science can be judged from this. But this is not the case in grants, and unlike journal and conference reviews, the results of a grant application can be associated with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars and are decided on incomplete science.
So my question is, what is the difference in approach that is often taken when reviewing grants compared to journal/conference papers? And how does this change for different scales of grants (e.g. personal fellowship, research projects not funding the investigator's salaries, centers of excellence)?

This is going to be tricky to formulate: there are so many funding agencies, each with its own process, that it's hard to describe what is "often" done.

I'm not a PI, but as a research administrator, I find many PIs don't review the merit review process for the sponsor of their proposal.  As an example, I had a PI who kept getting told there was no expert in topic X on her proposal, and thus it was declined.  She was the expert. Turns out none of the publications on her biosketch covered topic X, thus the investigator score was low.  The "admin docs" matter; they aren't "boilerplate".  PIs get rejected over these docs all the time. Here's NSF's: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/merit-review and NIH's: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review.htm

A nitpick: It may be just me, but the phrasing in the title mislead me to understand the question to concern "Difference in approach for reviewing [different instances of] papers and grants" (as in how do you consistently evaluate either papers or grants), and as opposed to "Difference in approach for reviewing papers [in general] and grants [in general]".

yeah, I see what you mean, changed the title to make it clearer what I am asking about

You don't begin your experience as a peer reviewer when you get asked to review, you begin it by writing papers and going through the acceptance process, and after a while you understand it enough to start to look at it from the other side. Similarly, you begin your experience in grant review by submitting successful and unsuccessful proposals, and undertaking the research you get funded for.

Arguably, grants are much more important than any given paper because careers are more directly impacted, and should be treated as such by all involved.
My personal policy in paper review is to never write down anything I wouldn't say directly to an author.  Even when the message may not be easy to hear, there are still ways to try to say it nicely.  I don't try to do this with grant reviews, as there's too much on the line to risk the PI not getting the message because I obfuscated it trying to be nice.
Same goes for scoring.  I was in a session once where there was a resubmission where everyone agreed that the PI just missed the point of the review.  Somebody in the room said "how much should we bump the score from the first submission?"  I dug in my heels at giving the PI the same score, as improving it might convince the PI that the study section was not serious about the criticism the PI ignored.  I saw the third submission in study section again (this is back when two resubmissions were allowed at NIH). The PI nailed it, and got one of the best scores that round.
If there's  a clear message you'd like the PI to get, make sure that the scientific review admin understands it well enough to convey it to the PI.
Make sure you know how to generate a score.  A good admin will provide all the necessary training to try to achieve consistency between scorers, and a bad one will not
Judge the science proposed, and not the science you wish was proposed.  There are many ways to skin a cat, and your way may not be the best or only way to get fine results and do stellar science.
Lastly, and most importantly, don't nickel and dime a good proposal you think needs to be funded with a laundry list of minor criticism just so the rest of the room realizes you're smart.  It will lower the scores of everyone in the room.

That last point has a name: new reviewer syndrome

For some grants, no feedback is provided to candidates, supposedly to make it harder for them to challenge the decision in court.

Reviewing a grant application involves assessment of different types of things than reviewing an academic paper.  When reviewing a submitted paper, we are looking at completed research and assessing whether it is ready for publication.  When reviewing a grant application, we are "imagining" a research project that has not yet been done and we are looking primarily at the plan and process for doing that research.  The latter is far more focused on project planning and management for a prospective project rather than trying to assess the quality of an output from a completed project.
Because of the diversity of funding bodies, grant programs, and associated rules and scoring rubrics, there is a great deal of variation in how grant applications are reviewed.  Nevertheless, there are some common aspects of reviews that occur in most cases.  Here are some specific aspects of typical parts of the assessment of a grant application, with comparisons to analogous aspects of reviewing academic papers:

Assessing novelty and prospective value: Assessing a grant application usually involves some initial assessment of the novelty and prospective value of the proposed research.  This is usually assessed relative to the goals of the funding body and there is usually some guidance provided as to the types of projects that are of interest to the funding body.  (Some of the core research funding bodies are interested in virtually every avenue of academic research, but others have much more specialised concerns.)  This aspect of the review is largely analogous to looking at novelty and substantive contribution in a submitted academic paper, including looking at the literature review and research description, and deciding whether the research is "in-scope".  For this part of the review, it is usually useful to separate out questions of feasibility and ask yourself whether the research would be novel and valuable assuming that it could be performed properly (save your concerns about feasibility to a separate part of your review).

Assessing feasibility: Assuming that the application proposes to do something of value, the next question is whether this is feasible.  This aspect of the assessment focusses on approach/methodology and management of the project.  Typically the reviewer will assess whether the proposed method is feasible to implement, whether or not it will actually answer the research question(s) of interest, and whether there are any impediments or problems that could derail the research that have not been considered.  This aspect of the assessment is not a part of the review of academic papers for completed projects, because in that case the research work leading to the output is already completed.

Assessing capability and capacity: Assessing a grant application usually involves some assessment of the capability and capacity of the research group to deliver the research.  This means that you want to ensure that the researchers are qualified to do the research, available to do the research, and that there is sufficient time/budget allocated to the parts of the project.  This is an aspect of the feasibility of the project, but it is focused primarily on skills and resourcing rather than the feasibility of the method itself.

Assessment relative to competition/resources: As with competition between academic papers for space in a journal, there is competition between grant applications for a portion of the grant money available in a funding category.  In both cases there is a finite resource (journal space or grant money) that is to be split between applicants (authors submitting papers or applicants submitting grant proposals).  Therefore, implicit in the assessment of a grant application is a comparison to the general quality of other applications or the level of quality expected for the funding.  This can be thought of as analogous to the implicit consideration of the standard quality and value of submissions in an academic journal.

Here are some useful tips for assessing the quality of a grant application:

Remember that time spent writing grant applications is time not spent producing substantive things of value in academia (e.g., research output, teaching, service).  If reviewers raise their expectations for grant applications too high (e.g., expecting high levels of detail, justification, preliminary research, etc.) then this incentivises more time spent on funding applications, potentially at the derogation of substantive work.  For this reason, it is useful to keep your expectations reasonable and require a general description without excessive detail or preliminary research/analysis.

Remember that a research proposal is not completed research, so try to look at it in a broad holistic sense, without agonising over minor details that can be ironed out once research commences.  If the approach and methodology is fundamentally sensible, and the applicants demonstrate the capability and capacity to perform the research within the time/budget available, that should go a long way towards a positive rating for the application.

Where there are problems with an application, make sure your rating incorporates this but also give clear feedback on the problems so that the applicants can address them in later funding applications.

Don't be one of those bureaucratic arseholes who completely disqualifies an otherwise meritorious grant application because it failed to exactly follow some formal requirement (e.g., it accidentally failed to include some piece of information from a CV).  Doing this elevates form over substance to an excessive degree and wastes the time of researchers.

In addition to existing answers:
Journals typically offer a 'minor revisions' option, and it is normal for reviewers to enumerate every possible way that they think the manuscript might possibly be improved. Often the reviewer doesn't necessarily expect the authors to accept every single suggestion. Apart from verifying that the submission meets some minimum standard, the reviewer's role is to help the author improve their manuscript as much as possible.
Grant programs typically only offer two outcomes: 'accept' or 'revise and resubmit'. Reviews should therefore concentrate on the core ideas of the proposal, and reviewers should be alert to the fact that any (apparently) negative comment may tip the balance towards rejection. This does not mean that your review needs to be wholly positive - if you see weaknesses, you should mention them - but avoid the temptation to highlight issues that are superficial or tangential to the main thrust of the proposal. Apart from verifying that the submission meets some minimum standard, the reviewer's role is to help the panel identify the N most valuable/worthy proposals from within M ( >> N) submissions.

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


text:
How to deal with ABD misrepresenting self as Dr
I supervise an employee who insists on being called Dr. in emails and on social media, but is ABD (all but dissertation) from about a decade ago. How have people handled such situations?
I was promoted from within my government organization into a supervisor role of a separate directorate in December 2020. Recently, one of my employees has increased use of the title "Dr." in email correspondence. Looking over archived emails, the person had a signature block of "XXX XXX, PhD(ABD)" since at least 2018 when I worked in different directorate and was not a supervisor. They seem to have taken that off their email signature block when I became their boss and started using PhD in my signature (defended dissertation and earned my PhD in May 2020), but they keep sneaking in the title "Dr. XXX" in their emails.
Now I'm not one to ever demand to be called Dr., especially since this is not a medical or academic office. However, today I received an email from our HR department addressed to "Dr. XXX and Mr. Supervisor-Me" and it set me off. Previously I chalked it up to arrogance and considered it unimportant. But today's email from HR using their "Dr." and my "Mr." seemingly set them as senior to me, the supervisor (we work in DoD, it's very hierarchical). I thought this might be now crossing the line between just arrogance into affecting other people's perceptions or potentially influencing personnel actions and such.
Employee XXX is currently out of the office for an extended period on an unrelated matter, so my ability to directly confront them is limited to email. My only plan so far was to ask via email "Hey XXX, I noticed you are using 'Dr.' Did you complete your dissertation? Can I add your diploma/degree to our system?" I wasn't planning on making a formal complaint to HR as I can't document any consequences, but it is an option. Has anyone dealt with such an issue before, and if so, what are your recommendations?
Note: As I was not the original hiring authority, I have no idea whether the ABD was misrepresented as a degree during the hiring process or if it even entered into the original hiring decision. It is not a requirement for continued employment either. In our internal HR system, they only list a master's degree. That's why I haven't treated it as fraud and only chalked it up to arrogance.
However, I do note that "PhD" (no mention of ABD) and "Dr. XXX" are all over the person's LinkedIn profile. As that's not an official resume, that may be a gray area since I suspect it wouldn't be obvious fraud unless and until they actively submitted a resume or claimed the title on official hiring or HR documents. This is a weird one as a personal social media page is outside my purview as supervisor, but it is ongoing misrepresentation to say the least.

Since the site has an international audience, is DoD = U.S. Department of Defense?

Seems like misrepresenting academic credentials is a crime in many US States, including Washington, Tennessee, and Florida. I wonder if there are similar federal laws. This paper is very interesting.

What is your goal? I'm not sure this belongs on Academia.SE because although it involves an academic degree it seems like it's about dealing with academic credentials outside of academia.

I think this question is a better fit for the workplace stack exchange and you would get more accurate advice there on how to handle the situation. For what it’s worth, from my perspective as an academic your employee is committing fraud and it is totally appropriate for you to take much more serious action than you seem to be contemplating, including in connection with the social media stuff that’s ostensibly outside your purview. Claiming a nonexistent degree is very serious professional misconduct and invites very harsh consequences.

"Now I'm not one to ever demand to be called Dr., especially since this is not a[n ...] academic office." I find this perspective a bit surprising, because whenever I meet people who care about "Dr." and similar titles, I will immediately assume that they do not work in academia (might be a cultural thing though, both regarding the country and the academic field).

I’d also suggest posting a version of this question on law.se. Your employee’s conduct may be a crime under federal law due to his lies being made in the context of work for the federal government, see here and here.

Maybe I missed something but: how does the OP know that their supervisee does not have a PhD?  That they didn't have one at some point in the past certainly seems inconclusive absent further information.  I would advise checking up on this with the institution before pursuing any kind of formal corrective action.

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

@Ian Your comment is quite misleading.  For the Washington law, (2) (b) requires "intent to obtain" which may not apply here.  Florida requires "intent to defraud."  Tennessee requires "intent to secure."  In the United States, lying is legal.  Fraud is not.

One suggestion: you may want to run this past someone on your security team (I'm assuming you have security clearances, as is usually the case for DoD employees). Clearances can be denied/revoked due to this sort of misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, it's very easy for someone to get a mail-order PhD for a small fee from an unaccredited diploma mill. I suspect that your colleague did that some time after he left a real PhD program.

LinkedIn has a form for reporting false claims in its profiles: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/ask/TS-NFPI "Let us know about inaccurate information listed on another person's profile
Instructions:
This form should only be used to report inaccurate employment or education information. "

As a supervisor, this is an inter-personal conflict for you.
If you want to stop this, you need to use the tools at your disposal to stop them.
Here are the steps I would take (each one has an off-ramp and solves the problem for you.):

Talk your supervisor to see if they care. They might tell you this is not worth the fight and this is an off ramp for you.
Verbally and informally, ask your subordinate to stop using a title they do not have. If they listen, this is your off-ramp. Also, listen to what they tell you. Perhaps they honestly think they can be called "Doctor". Be firm, but diplomatic.
If step 2 does not work, follow your HR procedure (and work with HR) to formally request they stop using a title they did not earn. HR might tell you they do not support you. This would be your off ramp.
Work with HR to take appropriate steps for insubordination (i.e., your subordinate does not follow directions). This would ultimately be termination if they refuse to follow your order and stop mis-using a title they did not earn.

You need to decide if this the proverbial hill worth dying on and spending your political capital on at work. But, that's a different question.
Edit, based upon a comment: I would also send a polite email to the HR person clarifying your title and ask that they be consistent in using title.
Edit 2, based upon multiple comments: The OP's original question implies the person did not complete their PhD. Step 0 could be verifying this assumption through a polite email, such as I see you're using "Dr." congrats on finishing your PhD! When did you finish?

Besides these possible paths, it seems worthwhile to write a polite email to the HR person clarifying that OP's title is Dr., not Mr. Although OP isn't usually the type to demand being called Dr. they probably should take this step just to avoid potentially being undermined.

What if the OP's assessment of the situation is wrong, and the subordinate is using the Dr. legitimately? Shouldn't OP verify this at the earliest point possible (or at least before step 2)?

It would appear that step zero is the OP's plan 'to ask via email "Hey XXX, I noticed you are using 'Dr.' Did you complete your dissertation? Can I add your diploma/degree to our system?"' If the answer comes back "Yes, here's the diploma" then that's an off-ramp straight away. "Yes" but without proof might warrant further investigation, probably using steps 1-4. Step 2 should produce the diploma, anyway.

@AndrewLeach thanks for the suggested wording

I don't know the laws in your country, in mine it is definitely a crime to sustain you have a title or pertain to a profession you actually don't. If someone else claims you do it's your duty to clarify you don't as failing to do so might be sanctioned as well.
It could be that this person honestly thinks they are a doctor, in my country you officially become a doctor when you obtain a bachelor degree for example.
Now, coming to the real issue which appears to be the fact that this guy appears to be arrogant and condescending towards you. This issue doesn't really seem to be regarding the official title, which as you said in the end really counts nothing. If he's working there and he's working well the title is quite irrelevant. The main problem here seems the relation among you too and the fact that you see this as an arrogant attack towards you (which might actually be true, but it may also not be so).
If this is the problem, taking this to HR would probably escalate and worsen what's happening, leading you two to an open conflict. I don't know what kind of relation you have with this person, but since you're his boss I guess you work together in a way or another. If possible, I would suggest talking over it informally at first and if you actually believe this is an inappropriate conduct to inform them to cease claiming such title.
Since you are the boss you have all the authority you need to do such request, even violently if you prefer; however being polite while interacting with other people generally leads to better and long lasting results.
Regarding the social media, that shouldn't really concern you unless you're ready to take this small incident to court.
Indeed as advised by someone else, letting HR know they should address you as Dr. would also solve the problem with the undermining.


text:
How to change the idea that supervsiors got about you?
In the beginning of a research program students (like me) may be lazy or find things hard and do things that make their supervisors get angry such as not completing specific job in the right time. They may be strongly criticized by their supervisors and their supervisors may get an idea that these students are not good enough. How can students change this idea that is in the head of their supervisors? What should they do?

The same way you would change anyone's perception of you for any other reason: Prove them wrong.
If you started out lazy, then kick yourself into high gear: Get tasks done ahead of time; predict future work, and get it done before it's asked for. Turn out quality work at a high pace. This sounds hard because it is. Unfortunately, you may have burned good-will at this point, and you need to rebuild it.
If you found things hard, or found that the supervisors expectations of velocity were unreasonable, discuss it with your supervisor. Discuss what background she may not know you have missed, discuss how you spent your time, and why things didn't get done fast enough.
Key here is the relationship. Your relationship sounds like it's on rocky ground, and if you're in it for another 3-5 years, then don't underestimate how much effort you're going to need to making sure that relationship doesn't break down.

... and, if your supervisor is an experienced, mature person, while they may have been irritated by sub-par "performance", such things should not completely surprise them. People in grad school are in a transition time in life, not only regarding the stresses of grad school, etc., and have not yet "arrived" themselves at the mature professional state they will (hopefully) reach. In particular, helping people get to that state is part of a supervisor's job with grad students (and probably any senior person in any professional situation).
So, while it's not good to have under-performed to the extent of setting-off your supervisor, and not a "good start", there should be much room for "forgiveness", if you can take a lesson from such a scenario, etc.

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


text:
In a postdoc position is it implicit that I will have to work in whatever my supervisor decides?
I have conducted my PhD in Austria on a very hyped field in the international community. During my work I have been able to start an international collaboration and publish some relevant papers. In particular, I really want to continue working with my main collaborator and they indeed said that they could offer me a postdoc position, but only starting next year.
In that case I needed to find a temporary one year position to wait. Looking for something like that I talked to a professor in a nearby university who works in a closely related field, but using methods with which I'm really not familiar with and which I do not have any affinity with. The professor asked several things about my research and said that they could offer me a position right now and I accepted. The issue is that during our conversation I took for granted that I would continue my current research (which is indeed what I wrote in my research statement when I applied to that university). In any case, he never mentioned anything else.
After a while his assistent started filling a form to formally request the grant be issued to me, and I got worried when I saw that they posted a project on that professors research. Again, I have no intent to work on that, and had he said during our conversation that I would be required to do so, I would have rejected the position.
I think that I have to ask him about that to have a clear understanding of what its expected of me, but I'm afraid to look like a fool that doesn't understand how postdoc positions work.
In that regard: when I talk to a professor to be my supervisor in a postdoc position, is it implicit that I will have to work in whatever he decides without any input on my part? How can I deal with this situation without looking like a fool?

I think it's more important to get clarity than to worry about looking foolish. Norms differ enormously across countries, academic subject, and individual professors.  You should just say that you misunderstood and see if you can come to some mutually agreeable outcome (which might mean you have to bail out).

Quite likely the grant that funds you had expectations of work being done in some area. Using the time to learn something new and teach what you know to others may be quite fruitful. But get it clear up front.

Do what 99% of the funded people do: grab the money and then try to balance your interests with your duties. When they diverge too much, simply be sure to have the next position funded and go away. Yes, you will burn bridges ... but you are a PostDoc  on your own anyway, so there is not much harm, you are not anymore a PhD whose lifeline depends on one professor...

The answer depends on many things (as others noted), including your research field. For math and theoretical physics there will be one answer, for lab sciences - another.

I've made an edit to your question since I think that you were saying that you have something lined up to start next year (with your main collaborator), and are taking a temporary 1 year position (with the professor from the nearby university). Can you confirm/deny since if this is the case, the way you wrote it probably confused some people.

At a meta-level, clear communication is vital. Take the lesson on board for future interactions. Don't assume what you will be working on when somebody offers you money, get it clear before any agreements are made.

You have a strong view, it might be useful to soften it a bit:

I have no intent to work on that, and had he said during our
conversation that I would be required to do so, I would have rejected
the position.

There are a lot of benefits of actually doing exactly that:

You haven't secured funding for the next year. Here you have money for a project in related field. It is better than to be unemployed for the whole year.
You have a great opportunity to learn new methods and extend your circle of collaborators.
It is very typical to continue to work on existing projects (e.g. finalizing manuscript, resubmissions, new job applications, etc.). Bare in mind, however, that the level of tolerance to these activities might vary. You should demonstrate good performance in the main project.

I suggest not to make quick decisions and actually try to harvest maximum benefits from this research opportunity.

This^^^. Branching out is exactly what one should do as a postdoc.

@Trunk "One's value to an employer is largely due to one's specific experience in the doctoral programme rather than the general research skills/discipline acquired." Nearly everyone I know will disagree with you on this.

@Trunk Nobody needs anyone who can only work on the very narrow topic they investigated in their PhD research. If that person later wants to be a faculty, they need to be able to teach a variety of courses to which they should have a connection; and they need to have a broad enough overview of areas so that they can see where what they do is applicable (and could be used to attract research funding). If they later want to work in industry or national research labs, they will need to have skills that are transferable between projects.

In other words, everyone needs the academic equivalent of decathletes. Nobody needs someone who can only do the pole vault and nothing else.

@Trunk Nobody can hit the ground running. There isn't a PhD in the world who has worked on exactly the topic you're hiring a postdoc for and who has graduated in the last three months. Everyone has to deviate a bit from their previous line. It's a question of how far.

I am sorry to break it to you, but yes, postdocs are generally not independent researchers. To do what YOU want to do, you've got to secure funding yourself (for example, a competitive postdoc fellowship awarded by a national granting body), or at least that's how it works in my country of origin (Japan) as well as in the labs I have visited so far (in Europe, Australia, and Russia).
So, the relationship between a supervisor and a postdoc is generally as follows: the supervisor either (i) gives you a topic to work on and expects you to come up with some ideas yourself, or (ii) gives you a specific problem and expects you to solve it. I've talked with a lot of supervisors and postdocs and have never seen anything different from that.
Professors spend a lot of time and effort to secure grants, so they naturally want to use their grants to advance their own research by hiring postdocs. Hiring a postdoc who would do something very different from what the professor does would be highly irrational for the professor.
Also, when professors apply for grants, they have to explain in their applications what the grant will be used for - the exact topic, methods, expected benefits, etc. So, when a professor is awarded a grant, he or she can't really use it for something substantially different from what was stated in the grant application.
There might be exceptions, so there might be professors who hire postdocs and give them freedom to do what they want, but that's not how things work in general, at least in my experience.
If I were you, I would say or write to the professor something to this effect, "Dear Prof. XXX, it looks like I totally messed up. My understanding was that I would be able to continue my current research. Now I've seen a form that says I will be working on a project of yours. And I've just realized, by reading things on the Internet, that postdocs generally work on their professor's projects, not on what they (postdocs) want to do themselves. But it wasn't my intent to work on your project. I didn't really know how things work in academia. How should we go about that?"
So, be honest and direct and ask the professor how he thinks both of you should go about the situation. In my experience, this kind of attitude gives the best outcomes in difficult situations.
Honesty is the best policy.

Postdocs are indeed not independent positions, but they are positions intended to improve the applicant's chances to obtain a permanent faculty position, which might entail furthering their independence. This is the tension in which the postdoc-to-PI relationship is positioned, and which requires careful navigation.

Good postdoc mentors will be able to balance requiring postdocs to work on the project that pays their salary, and letting them have time for their own projects. But there has to be an element of the former.

"Also, when professors apply for grants, they have to explain in their applications what the grant will be used for - the exact topic, methods, expected benefits, etc." In the US there are postdoc fellowships, in which a level of independence is expected. Sure, you have to define the general topic, but considerable latitude is afforded in the research direction.

@user71659 In my experience US postdoc fellowships come with research plans that are just as detailed as grants that professors apply for. The scoring is a bit different and leans more on the candidate versus project, though.

@BryanKrause Sure you always have to submit a plan that makes it look like you know what you're doing and have a high likelihood of success, but you're rarely held strictly to that plan. All the fellowships I'm familiar with, there's no phase or option structure where they evaluate fixed goals and cut off funding; it's fine as long as you produced reasonable results or progress towards the idea. It may be different in Japan, but most grant-type funding in the US is far more flexible than this answer makes it out to be.

@user71659 I've just added a clarification: To do what YOU want to do, you've got to secure funding yourself (for example, a competitive postdoc fellowship awarded by a national granting body)

@user71659 Sure, but that's really no different from grants to professors in the US. There's an expectation you'll work somewhat towards the things outlined in the grant, but if things change, you're expected to adapt to the new situation and keep working. There are some exceptions like some DoD grants that are organized more like engineering projects than research grants (even if the product is research).

''So, when a professor is awarded a grant, he or she can't really use it for something substantially different from what was stated in the grant application.'' Not sure if that's true, I have spoken to professors who secured grant money and they said no-one really cared what was actually done with the money etc.

@Tom that sounds fraudulent to me, unless it is a very specific type of grant (fellowship funding the person like a MacArthur Genius Grant) … most funding is project-based

@lighthousekeeper thats a particulalry US perspective on the purpose of postdocs I think. In the UK at least, Postdocs not generally regarded as training positions, but just as the bulk scientific workforce.

@IanSudbery The wording in the German system, which I'm most familiar with, would be "qualification position", which is arguably not the same as "training position".

@lighthousekeeper I'm not sure I follow the meaning of "qualitifcation position", but in the UK, for the most part a postdoc is just a research assistant that happens to have a PhD (hence the commonly used term for the position - PDRA). A good PI will provide an environment that will help their team to develop, but its not the purpose of the position.

@IanSudbery The job contract then usually specifies a qualification target, such as habilitation (a degree obtained from independent research and teaching) or habilitation-equivalent achievements.

@lighthousekeeper Got it. Hence the difference from countries where there are no higher qualifications than PhD.

@IanSudbery Well, qualification in the sense here means "merits that quality for a professorship". That could be a formal degree like habilitation, but doesn't have to be, as many faculties and disciplines in Germany don't require a habilitation at this point (hence, "habilitation-equivalent achievements" could be a formulation for the qualification target).

The only real requirement is that you adhere to any contract that you sign. But how postdocs work varies a lot from case to case. There are situations in which the person is totally free to set their direction and others in which they are bound to the needs of some specific project that may (or not) already exist.
Funding complicates the issue. If there is only funding for close adherence to a given project then you might want to keep looking for a more suitable position.
You are wise to be concerned and you need to work out any misconceptions about your respective needs. This situation may not be the one you want.
But you seem to have the right idea about the needed conversations.

That depends on a lot

The first thing is if the money for paying you comes from a project with a clearly defined scope and goal. Then it's not even up to your supervisor to change that (and yes, while I have seen it happening that money was misappropriated and nothing happened, the funding body could come to the person applying and ask why the money is not used correctly).

If you work more than the funding paying for your position and get additional funding from the institution you work at and their money, then your supervisor is your boss and has power to decide what you should be working on

If you use equipment provided for by your new institution, you need to ask if that's ok, even if you do this outside your working time.

If you use equipment provided for by your a specific project funding, the applicant to that funding needs to clarify if that's ok (to be clear, i have seen parts from Projects "borrowed" to other experiments, which probably is not ok without mentioning the funding source).

The rest is up to a discussion between you and your supervisor, but yes, they are your boss in sense of that contract and need to decide.

So talk specifics to your potential supervisor - it could be that they are interested to find a solution.

Why would researcher/PI fund from their grant a postdoc working on a project not related to the grant?  How does this PI justify this to the funding agency?  Why would this PI invest time, money and resources (space, computer time, a lab bench, whatever) into a postdoc who will bring much less to the research group than someone working directly on a grant-funded project?
So unless you come with your own money, yes you are expected to work on your PI’s project.

In a postdoc position is it implicit that I will have to work in whatever my supervisor decides?

No. On the contrary, it is implicit that you will have some, or a lot, of autonomy, on the one hand, and contribute to the group/PI's research, on the other hand.
There isn't a proper definition of what a "postdoc position" is. Any position doing research, for which a PhD-equivalent background is a necessary and sufficient condition, and which isn't a permanent staff position, is a "post-doc" - but that's quite a wide set of potential occupations. BTW, It's not even implicit in the term "postdoc" that you'll have a "supervisor" at all.

that professors research... I have no intent to work on that

Now you're saying something very different than what your title says and what your question up to here has said.
You asked whether you may be required to work solely on your host/supervisor's research project - but what you actually want to do is not do any work on that project. It is implicit that much of your work will be on the subject your research group is working on.

and had he said during our conversation that I would be required to do so, I would have rejected the position.

I'm not sure I really believe you, and few others will take that claim seriously. It seems like you are trying to deny the nature of the position you have taken, using sophistry to argue that they should employ you to do whatever you like.

I think that I have to ask him about that to have a clear understanding of what its expected of me, but I'm afraid to look like a fool that doesn't understand how postdoc positions work.

In Academia, we often look like fools, and sometimes even adopt the position of the fool to examine issues without our assumptions and presumptions; so - don't be afraid of that too much. More specifically, though, it is better to have a sit-down with that professor, explain your misconception, and try to reach an amicable arrangement - than to let this miscommunication fester and blow up later on.
An "amicable arrangement" might be some carving-up of your time between your own research agenda and his / his team's. It might also be an early termination of the post-doc, although that might theoretically reflect poorly on you.

I don’t think this is completely right.  If you are paid by a PI, you can be autonomous within the project assigned by the PI but you are typically hired as a postdoc to work on a specific funded project, not on any project.  You’re 2. is also IMO slightly incorrect.  There are plenty of non-permanent staff positions funded on “soft money” that are not postdocs but will typically require a PhD to qualify.  There are a variety of titles aka research associate or research scientist which fall under this umbrella and aren’t so well defined, but they are not “post doc” positions.

" If you are paid by a PI" <- This almost never happens. You're paid by the university. "typically hired as a postdoc to work on a specific funded project" - disagree. "that are not postdocs but will typically require a PhD to qualify" - these are literally post-docs.

A postdoc position is a contract for a particular job
In a postdoc position it is implicit that there will be a particular research direction specified in the contract; postdocs generally are not treated as independent researchers, they are hired to do specific research work. Depending on the position and its funding, that direction may be set by the postdoc's personal research interests or by the supervisor's research interests or by the pre-committed direction of some already approved project at the institution.
In general, if someone says "hey, I've got a postdoc position that would be good for you" it shouldn't be interpreted that they have available funding to pursue your own interests, but that they have available funding for something specific that is close enough to your previous research that you'd be able to do it well; and if you want to consider that option, it's entirely appropriate to start with an inquiry about what the research direction is going to be, with the expectation that you might not have much input into what it's going to be.
It would not be safe to assume that it is a position to pursue whatever research topic catches your fancy, but it also won't be "whatever my supervisor decides on the spot", a reasonable expectation is that the direction would be agreed upon before the contract. Do note that the supervisor may or may not have the possibility to agree on an arbitrary topic that you want, that depends on what the constraints on particular funding opportunities dictate, it may well be that a research direction for a particular postdoc position is pre-determined, take it or leave it, and your previous research is only relevant as far as to suggest if you'll be able to do the specific research work that the institution needs from that postdoc.
That being said, often (perhaps usually?) postdocs do pursue their own research interests - however, unless they are a close match to what the research team needs, that research work on personal interests would be on top of the research and deliverables expected from the postdoc job.

The official line is that they are paying you so at least in the sciences, yes you have certain duties to fulfil to get that money and you might be expected to work on a very specific project which supervisor has in mind.The game is to balance those duties with what you ''actually want to do''.
They probably aren't just going to pay a postdoc to work on absolutely anything they want, be completely independent and not write any papers with anyone in the research group, at least not in science and engineering.


text:
Is there a trick to choose the optimum number of past year questions to solve under timing constraints?
A not uncommon occurrence for students is that they only have a few days left before an exam for a course they are taking and may still have some topics that they need to revise. (This doesn't necessarily mean lack of commitment to the course, but there may have been other, harder subjects, or personal issues that arose.)
My question is if there a trick to choose the optimum number of past year question papers to optimize my score on the exams? Is there a general suggestion regarding which past year papers should I solve and which I should skip?
This question is coming from the perspective of the student, but I could envisage this also being a useful question for tutors or instructors.

Welcome to the site. On this site, answers will lean towards "how things should be". And as for your question, the "how things should be" answer is that you should focus on understanding the content of your lecture to the best possible degree in the remaining days - a well-designed exam should then be easy to pass. Past year's question are great to estimate after learning if your efforts so far appear to be sufficient. Focussing on these question during learning will guide your focus away from what is to be learned, which should be avoided to keep your knowledge applicable. Good luck!

But in my last post users recommended me to follow past year questions rather than studying the whole syllabus. So I am asking that here.

I've edited this question (pending review) to try to make this question fit the style of questions on this site. However you should probably try to make the (new) paragraph beginning with My question ... clearer. I haven't edited this to try to keep the intention of the question intact.

thank you. that is almost my point.

@bikramnepali No, this is not what was proposed to you as comment to your other question. The proposal was to look at previous exams to get to know the level of detail you need to learn a subject, i.e., when to stop digging deeper into the supporting literature. This is not the same as preparing for an exam by learning primarily for answering questions like the ones that have been asked in exams before. The other comment given you there was again about using old exam questions to check your understanding, which comes after studying.

No, there is no trick.
You could try to do some past year questions from as many different topics as possible, or maybe focus on the topics that show up most often, but beyond that: get studying.

Do as many problems as you can without making yourself physically and mentally unable to concentrate. (Don't pull an all nighter before the exam! And if you start feeling anxious, take a break and breathe.)
It's worth doing problems both that you think you know how to solve (so you can check the solution and look for little details you may have missed), and problems you don't feel comfortable with. However, it's generally better to spend more time with the subjects you feel the least comfortable with, so you learn them.
It's a good idea to set aside on exam that you will take under timed conditions to see how you perform. But while working through other exams, take your time and try to really understand all the details of the problems, especially the ones that are confusing. Understanding one difficult problem fully often gives you a good toolkit which lets you tackle other "nearby" problems.
There's no substitute for hard work. Good luck!


text:
Applying to Ph.D, how to reach out to a professor with no exactly overlapping research topic with me?
Before everyone's coming at me, let me explain.
I am a CS student and been working on a fundamental type of research project. In my project, I had to propose a new approach, find a new algorithm to tackle a specific topic issue. The ultimate goal was to find the algorithm itself, not directly to application/implementation. My algorithm is new and has never been used before as an approach to solve this problem. It is tested, has less drawbacks than existing algorithms, and has been published in a paper.
Meanwhile, this professor I'm trying to reach out, is from the same specific field of CS as me, and he's a "rockstar" in device implementation and optimization. I've come across his name from papers and books countless times during my years of research, since he's indeed an expert in my field. It's always been my goal to actually implement my algorithm in devices to begin with. But unfortunately due to time constraints during my master, I was only able to work on the algorithm development.
I believe with his implementation competence, expertise and guidance, not only this research can be improved, but also he could enrich my skills in algorithm development along with implementation as well. I've read his book and some papers, but because my project is addressing a real-life target issue that has never been addressed in his lab before, unfortunately there's no overlapping research topic between us, apart from a broad topic, and that he's been working on device optimization that could be extremely useful for my research.
How do I politely explain this situation to him, that I genuinely want to learn from him under his supervision about implementation and optimization area, without sounding like I'm a random student with a random research idea who would like to do Ph.D. in his lab ?

You say "published in a paper". Are you the author? Is it in a good journal or conference proceedings?

@Buffy yes I'm the first author of the paper and it was published in a quite influential conference in my field. But again, it's not related to everything he's ever done.

My advice on making contact with rockstars is to have an intermediary introduce you to them. They are, by definition, very busy. (Concert dates, groupies, wild parties,...). It is natural for them to think of you as "a random student with a random research idea" if you contact them directly. They probably get a lot of messages, all of which turn out to be of little value.
If you can, find a professor in your field, such as your advisor, perhaps, and have them write on your behalf with just an introduction and a short recommendation that your research on "topic" is interesting. It is harder for even a rockstar to ignore a colleague than a "a random student with a random research idea".
And having a paper published gives the recommender a hook into explaining why the introduction is being made.
It is even better if your local professor/recommender is known to the rockstar. It is still better to tag along at a conference and get introduced in person (after the current pandemic dies down, of course).
But once you are introduced you have a chance to deepen the conversation over time.
But, in particular, don't flood the person with too much information initially. That makes it even easier to ignore you since it takes time and effort to evaluate what you send even to determine if there is anything of value in it. Many will be too busy to want to bother.

Personal note: It isn't exactly the same situation, but I was once able to get a good student accepted into the doctoral program at Georgia Tech by making a personal appeal to the dean, who was a friend of mine. The student wasn't a very good standard-test taker, so is GRE was a bit mediocre, but I saw his potential and expressed it to the dean. I was later told that my not-at-all-inflated recommendation was important in getting him accepted and he went on to finish and to get hired at a similarly prestigious place.

Hi, thanks. My advisor is aware of my Ph.D plan, they both indeed know each other. The fact that this new Professor is a "rockstar", my advisor is a "pioneer" in this field and of course I was planning to mention his name in my email. My advisor told me to send an email to this new Professor, he also mentioned that he's more than happy to write me a recommendation letter. Despite being a Prof. for 30 years, maybe he doesn't think of this approach you mentioned above. Maybe I can mention this approach to him. And meanwhile, I'm open to more advise to my question.

Even better. Your professor won't be ignored. So ask. He probably gets complementary tickets to all of the "rockstar's" concerts. Probably has an extra one for you.


text:
Springer with Editor
I just submitted my paper to a Springer journal. The status changed to with editor and then decision process . I thought the paper will be rejected as it didn't pass the prescreening phase but the status went down to with editor again and didn't change for 10 days now.
Should I contact the editor Or should I wait?

Thank you for your comments. Hope this is the case. I'm Ok with waiting but I was In doubt concerning the rejection based on the prescreening. Thank you

What field?  I am in math, and generally I do not contact the journal about a submitted paper until I have waited 6 months.

I'm in mathematics and Computer sciences. I work on computer vision algorithms. I see this is my first experience with Springer. My previous article was with Taylor and Francis. I did take about 6 months. But I was informed that my article in in review process after 1 month.

"With editor" means an editor has been assigned, but no reviewers have been invited yet. "Decision in process" means the editor has made a recommendation to the editor-in-chief.
I'm guessing that the editor-in-chief disagreed with the editor, and either assigned a different editor or sent the manuscript back to the editor. I would say wait, although if it goes another ~1 week without the status changing I would write to the journal asking for an update. Two weeks should be sufficient for the editor to either make a decision, or to invite reviewers.

Thank you for the clarification. based on your advice I'll wait for a third week and send a message to seek the current state of the article. Thank you again.

The editor in chief may also be on vacation, have a proposal deadline, or any other number of reasons why they haven't gotten to finalizing the decision yet. No email will change this -- have patience.

@Allure Please in springer journal is ''Reviewers Assigned'' means ''under review''? or just an invitation has been send to reviewers? Thanks a lot.

@Student I can't tell what the editorial management system says from the outside, but chances are, reviewers invited but haven't accepted the invitations yet.

@Allure Dear Allure, please I have  a submitted paper to some math springer journal it is under review since three months. Today the status is editor assigned. What this means? thanks a lot.

@Student https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like should answer all your questions.

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


text:
Is it good to finish a PhD fast?
I am not going to give details about the situation (for obvious reasons) but here it is: I got accepted for PhD to a very good American university, in experimental particle physics and I met a famous professor here who is willing to be my mentor.
I talked to some of his old students and they all said good things about him (both personality related and research related).
The thing is that his students usually finish the PhD in about 3 years (this includes taking classes, written and oral exams), while the average here is about 6. I am not sure if I should go for it or not.
I really like the work that he is doing and a recommendation letter from him would definitely mean a lot and I am totally willing to put as much effort as necessary into the projects he gives me. I am just not sure if a 3 years PhD would be good for my future career.
Will I get to learn enough? Will the post-doc or professor positions I will apply to might view such a short PhD as a bad thing (the students I talked to graduated quite recently so I am not sure about the long term impact of this)?

Have you asked any of those students why they were able to finish so fast?  Did they feel ready or did they feel rushed out?  Was there any reason to think they couldn't have taken longer if they'd felt it would have been helpful?

Voting to reopen because I don't see why this is too personal to answer.

Voting to reopen. Part of a good answer is to explain how and why this "depends on individual factors".

Answers in comments and the resulting replies have been moved to chat (this is one of the main reasons why answers in comments are bad); please repost them as answers. Also, please edit additional information into the question. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

One of the questions is why his students finish so fast. That's likely at the core of whether or not things are "Good" or "Bad".
For example, some potential good reasons:

His lab has stable funding, which means his students need to take fewer TA positions to fund themselves, and can work on research instead. Note that this might also be a bad thing if you want to accumulate teaching experience.
His lab has a productive experiment and data generation pipeline, meaning his students might have clear experimental setups, there's a lot of institutional knowledge, etc. that prevents them from going down unproductive rabbit holes.

In both cases, a "Good" lab might have removed some of the waste time from doing a PhD that many people experience, which will cut down on the time it takes, potentially by quite a bit.
Some potentially bad reasons:

The course of study for his students is expressly just what's useful for their work in his lab, discouraging picking up depth or exploring interests.
The projects are "gift wrapped" and don't involve much thought on the part of the student as to how to conduct them - all they have to do is pull the trigger. This seems like a good thing, but can leave you with a lack of skills in articulating an independent research agenda later.

Just knowing the time it takes can't tell you which of those things (and others) is actually in play.

I think the answer could benefit from some more balance: You consider not teaching as good or bad – depending on your goal. But doesn't that hold for all 4 reasons, the "good" and the "bad" ones? Yes, it is nice and less frustrating to start with a working experimental setup, however, the experience to have to create it (including the frustration) can also be very valuable. Yes, lerning only what you need in the lab is kind of narrow, but can also be considered as an experience in strong focus on the outcome. Point: It is important to understand the reasons – but their value depends on you.

I received my PhD in statistics (US University) in three years. I came in with a master's degree, which sometimes makes a difference. I obtained a very desirable post-doc afterwards. No one has ever questioned me on why it "only" took three years.
Three years is probably the lower bound. If you go below that, some people may raise an eyebrow. But if your dissertation is quality and you can get out in three years, all the better. There are a number of people who only take three years.
Also note that it is not that uncommon to not even list on your CV the years you obtained your degrees. (Although this is more the case for established researchers).

Added: A few comments have mentioned the fact that you do not want to shortchange yourself from the learning experiences found in obtaining a PhD by rushing through a PhD. While many good learning experiences can be found in obtaining a PhD, it is not as if you defend your dissertation and are then commanded to terminate any further learning. For me personally, I much preferred growing as a researcher while getting paid a real salary with health insurance over growing as a researcher and earning a small stipend and eating instant noodles everyday.
In all, there is no single one-size-fits all answer. Taking six years to finish is not a guarantee that you will be prepared to do independent research; taking three years is no guarantee either.

@Roland in which sense too short? Not enough time to get the proper amount of information? Or not enough time to get yourself known in the field well enough? Or both?

@Roland Three years is pretty normal, even without a Master's degree.  In the UK it's pretty typical for a PhD to run three years.  Many students start right from undergrad - their first year would start in the Master's stream, but with the option to transfer to the PhD programme at the end of that year, taking two more years to complete the PhD.

Where did you get your PhD? 3-4 years is normal in the UK; fast in the US.  Just saying how long it took you isn't enough information.

He mentions particle physics. In the UK that would require a 4 year undergraduate degree (i.e. MSc) to be accepted in a PhD programme.

@Marianne013 Exactly - in the UK 4 years undegrad plus three PhD (total of 7 years) is totally normal.  In Canada, as a counterexample, four years would get you the BSc, another two for the MSc, and typically 4-5 years to finish the PhD (total of 10-11 years).  Germany, I believe, would be similar.

The issue isn't specifically the time it takes for your PhD, but rather what you get out of it.
Will your CV after 3 years get you the jobs you want? Are others in your country/field spending 6 years publishing and strengthening their CV?
Personally, I didn't feel ready until my 6th year and there is no way I would have had a competitive CV if I graduated much sooner.

Thank you for your reply! But does it make a big difference if I start now, finish in 3 years and do 3 years of post-doc compared to someone who does 6 year of PhD? Will he learn more than me or get more papers published in 6 years? Also for your personal situation, do you consider that doing 3 years of post-doc instead of 3 of PhD, wouldn't have given you a good enough CV?

I wouldn't have been successful in a postdoc after a 3 year PhD, assuming that a postdoc receives less mentorship and is expected to be fairly independent. I also would have been far less competitive for good postdoc positions. I could have certainly trimmed a year or a bit more off and done a postdoc though.

In the following I am speaking from personal experience and what I hear from others. I don't claim objectivity.
I had a Master's degree when I started by PhD in AI and two years of industry experience. My goal is to finish as fast as possible - especially for financial reasons, because I am also supporting a wife and little son. I think there should be requirements when you are eligible for your PhD title - the faster you can get those, the smarter (or luckier for a big part) you must have been. That would be my reasoning. That much for the CV - at least from a business perspective if you want to go back into industry later.
Regarding the fun aspect: Doing a PhD can also be a fun experience that you would like to have a little longer. However, don't expect it to be the "best time of your life". I know many people who said it was the hardest time in their life. I love research and feel I was born to do it, but I have to say: It is no picnic, especially in the context of a PhD, where the pressure can be pretty high (publish or perish).
Regarding your professor: Having a good supervisor trumps nearly everything, I think. I know so many PhD students who have serious issues with their professors. Luckily I am not one of them, but that seems to be the exception from what I hear.
I think I would go for it and opt for a post-doc if you want to lengthen your time at university. You would have your PhD in the bag (pressure should be lower) and get higher salary.

if I start now, finish in 3 years and do 3 years of post-doc compared
  to someone who does 6 year of PhD

3 years is standard for most PhD programs in the EU, including the very top ones as in ETH, Oxbridge etc.
Regarding 3 years PhD + 3 years postdoc vs 6 years PhD
Pros:

Finacial. I earned more than 3 times as a postdoc ($80,000 vs £15,600 tax free).
Broaden research areas. After 3 years, you may get bored with a very narrow topic. It's good to explore something else. Note that for PhD, you often need to work on the same topic, in particular when your thesis is a monograph.
Broaden your network: new collaborators (of new advisor)
Learn to manage a team. You are considered more senior than PhD students in new group.

Cons:

This did not happen to me, but I heard that in many cases, first authorship was given to PhD students even when the postdoc did most of the work.

OP is not in the EU.

@BryanKrause neither is oxbridge (soon).

It took me six total years (and 3 months) after my bachelor's to finish my Ph. D. which included the Master's degree [USA].  My Ph.D. was in Electrical Engineering (Signal Processing, specifically array processing).  I now work in software-engineering exclusively, so one never knows what the future holds!
It is definitely good to finish the Ph.D. as speedily as reasonable if you are up for the work, it is a good idea.
A lot, of course, depends on your personal, not academic/career considerations; of course, the latter affect the former.

The time that you should take is the time needed to complete the required coursework and to complete the requested research. In the physical sciences, the latter involves validating hypotheses in an otherwise open-ended project, publishing a core part of your findings, and having them accepted in a peer-reviewed journal. The time that you will take is the time until your committee approves your work.
Whether the time is three years or six is not relevant. What you accomplish in that time is exceptionally relevant.
Ask for the publications from the previous students. Read them and judge for yourself whether the work they have done has merit and is what you want to do.
I'll add additional points of reference.
I am aware of cases where PhD degrees took anywhere from three to six years even in the same department. The differences were advisor and sub-field. In the physical sciences, the caution when I might review a PhD that took only three years is that I will look to certify whether the work was original and thorough enough despite the perception of being a short time. An off-the-cuff example of a low impact PhD completed in short time is one that is nothing more than a new twist on a data analysis method applied to a collection of "big data". I count this as a tick mark toward "degree inflation". At the opposite extreme, I have to wonder after six years where the heck a student is spending his/her time (if not also why he/she allows the advisor a hold on what amounts to slave wages). This is the point where a dissertation committee should be called for leverage to set a foreseeable end point.
In summary, a PhD in the physical sciences should be awarded based on the recognition of success in the development of an idea or approach that can be uniquely identified as original to the student. A story I heard about a rejection goes as "Your dissertation presents much that is original and groundbreaking. Unfortunately, what is original is not groundbreaking, and what is groundbreaking is not original". Does this take three years or six? You decide for yourself.

Thank you for reply! Actually I looked at one of his last students, who graduated in 2 years. He had 5 publications (it was part of a bigger collaboration, however) and the professor said he did a lot of work. Also the papers were published as editor suggestion in a really important journal. I assume you end up doing a lot of stuff even it is 2-3 years. I am more wondering if I should give myself more time to enjoy the graduate experience or not (and the impact on my future career).

My recommendation is, do what you gives you the most enjoyment. I might also add one caution. A lot of work can be done churning through a big data set to publish a lot of papers on technical results. The technical results can be published in a really important journal. That should however not be the true intent of working toward a PhD.

Long PhDs are a way for researchers to have cheap labor. Provided your research is up to scratch, as evidenced by publication in peer-reviewed journals, the length does not signify.
In Australia, research institutions are penalized once PhD students start taking longer than four years.
I did my PhD in 27 months; I had a research masters before starting, though.

Yes. It is very good.
I completed a Ph.D. (also in EPP, funnily enough) in 2 years and 11 months. I started in October 1988 and made a particular point of having the timestamp of September 1991 on the front cover. I used this as a USP when applying for post-doc jobs and made sure always to slip the phrase on-time Ph.D. into the interview. This always raised an eyebrow and generated a hmmm or even a really? from at least one of the interviewers. As regards to how successful the strategy was, I have managed to stay in work ever since.
For background, I did this Ph.D. in the U.K. and was funded by a rather munificent Government Research Council that only paid for three years. Since I had no other means of support, I was heavily incentivised to finish on time. Also, I had a five-year break working in industry between my first degree and embarking on my doctorate so I had grown up a bit and gotten a bit more focused. This helped me to avoid the usual student traps of faffing about endlessly.

Let me throw in a slightly alternative view.  It is best to finish a PhD smoothly, without unnecessary obstacles, and move on with your life and career.
That said, you will never be more protected in your academic career as when you're a PhD student.  There's very little grant pressure.  Mistakes are unlikely to be career enders.  There's no "up or out" clock ticking.
There are things that should be accomplished while you are a student that have nothing to do with finishing your research.  You should be taking every opportunity to network.  You should be voraciously reading everything in your field.  You should be starting to write your first grant.  You shouldn't just be working very hard to finish up your research, you should be laying a framework to hit the ground running when you start your next endeavor.
So, if you can work very hard, and finish your PhD research a year early, but it's at the expense of not doing all that other stuff, I would think long and hard about it.

I think it comes down to these two main factors: if you take a long time, you would also have more time to do research, which should translate into more publications, more conference presentations, and so on. You'll also have more time to pick up expertise in other areas, i.e. be less specialized on your thesis topic. If you finish quickly, you will have less of these things - but you will also be able to move on to your next job sooner.
With fewer publications, conference presentations, etc, you would be less competitive for fellowships or postdoc positions. However these may not matter depending on what jobs you're looking to do afterwards. Further, PhD student positions in the US tend not to be well paid, so getting a PhD sooner enables you to move on to a higher-paying + more stable job quicker.
Ultimately, the choice is yours.

This is a very open ended question. Is it good to drive a car fast? It totally depends on what your objective is. In the big picture, there are many other factors in addition to speed of finishing that influence how much you learnt, the quality of your work etc.
However, in my experience of having done a 'short PhD', it is not a handicap when applying for other institutions. The quality of the work speaks far louder.

The thing is that he is a Nobel prize winner, and I really like his research so I want a lot to work with him. But I know he will make in such a way for me to finish the PhD fast. So I have no doubt about wanting to work with him, I just hope it won't have any negative influence on me later

Sounds enough like a trap to me, alright...

@mathreadler what do you mean?

@AlexMarshall it sounds like an efficient trap for young, ambitious and reasonably naiive researchers.


text:
How do admissions to UK PhD programs work?
I know that in the US people apply for PhD programs, with a rough a idea in their heads what interests them, as PhD's take much longer and include time to explore the subject.
How does this work for UK students? PhD's usually last for around 3-4 years, and it seems that you would have to know exactly what you want to do when you apply?
I have completed a BA & MA in the Humanities, but I am not sure yet what to write my PhD on. I am sure though that I want to pursue this path.
How does the usual process look like? Would I first contact a professor I would like to work with and then apply to the program? And how specific should my research idea be? I have a certain subtopic of my discipline in mind, and I have also identified a few interesting potential supervisors. However, I am nowhere near having found a proper topic, or an interesting idea which I would want to develop.How do people do this? Sorry if this is a little bit general, but I am a bit stuck!
edit: Let's work on the assumption that I am in the Humanities & that I do not require funding.

Do you require funding or do you have funding? (note that UK universities charge a fee). I a good idea of how this works in the sciences, but the humanities may be totally different.

Let's work on the assumption that I do not require funding.

How does the usual process look like?
Differently.
Are you applying for a 3+1 degree? Or a studentship? Or a normal PhD?
(Note: 3+1 (or 1+3) degrees are a combination of a 1-year Master's and a 3-year PhD. Their first year is equivalent to a Master's, and upon satisfactory performance at the end of your first year, you are allowed into the PhD programme. Sometimes the first year is done at one university, and the remaining three years at another university. Example 1 Example2)
Does the application require a research proposal? And/or a writing/work sample? And/or a personal statement?
Do you have your own funding? If not, what type of funding are you applying for? If the funding applications are separate, do they require their own documents?
Etc.
Would I first contact a professor I would like to work with and then apply to the program?
Unless it is a 3+1 course, then normally yes. You would have to find a supervisor willing to supervise you, and to help you properly form your research proposal.
If you are applying for a studentship, then it is likely that most, if not all, the information needed to write the research proposal is already available.
In 3+1 courses, the applications tend to be much more general. They often do not require research proposal, but rather personal and/or research statements. Also, you typically are not required to get in touch with any of the supervising staff, because the topic of your PhD is decided toward the end of your first year.
And how specific should my research idea be?
Research proposals are very specific. It is rare for students to deviate too much from the core of their research proposals during their PhDs.
To get a broad idea of how specific your research proposal should be, I can tell you that your research proposal would need to have introduction, background, aims, methodology, possibly a strategy/schedule, possibly a section about the importance of the research, etc.
But, many people (and most, if not all, successful candidates) get help from their potential supervisors with forming and writing their research proposals.
How do people do this?
I cannot say how other people did it, but the way I wrote my research proposal was I started with a more general idea, then I read a lot about it, which helped me to reduce it to a somewhat specific idea and to find a couple of possibly suitable approaches to achieve this idea. Then I got in touch with a potential supervisor who pointed me to a few recent papers, which further narrowed down my idea to something that looked like a proper PhD project. He then helped me write my research proposal by providing me with tips and very useful feedback.

It might be worth explaining what a 3+1 course is. I'm from the UK and had to google it.

does 3:1 mean things like MPhil + PhD, or is it this thing where you start as a Probationary Research Student and then transfer to the PhD? - or something completely different? I have never seen this online anywhere, where it was pointed out like "This PhD is part of a 3+1 Programme", is this usually made explicit?

@ChristianGärtner Master's followed by a PhD. They are typically advertised as PhDs (example 1, example 2).

Can you add the examples to your answer?

I'll start with the caveat that I'm in the sciences and this got too long for a comment.
You state that

"I have a certain subtopic of my discipline in mind, and I have also
  identified a few interesting potential supervisors."

That's great! I think the next step for you would be to contact those potential supervisors with a brief email explaining your interests and asking if they are looking to take on a PhD student.
If the answer is yes, you will likely be able to work with that supervisor to develop a specific research proposal. This could be done via email, but I would recommend Skype or meeting in person if possible, just so you can get to know them. When you're ready, you can then formally apply to the department for a PhD position using the proposal you have prepared, mentioning your prospective supervisor's name in your application.
You also state that you do not require funding- I think this will work in your favour, provided you are a competitive candidate (i.e. your grades and research proposal are good). The reasons for this are twofold: one, the supervisor does not have to find money to support you and two, you may be able to start your PhD whenever you want, rather than being tied to a start date dictated by when your funding starts. However, this is something you should discuss with your prospective supervisor.
Note: the academic year in the UK begins in September, and as such you are almost certainly too late to apply to start your PhD this year.

So I would just email the potential advisor and then schedule a Skype call to develop a proposal? Would this not be difficult to arrange with a busy professor?

I don't want to be flippant but if they don't have time for you now I'd be wary of expecting them to make time for you as a PhD student. (To answer your questions though: 1) yes and 2) no. If your email is brief, polite and to-the-point, you can expect a similar reply. My advice is try it and see- there's no other sensible way to go about this.)


text:
Should I write a non-academic white paper?
I have a B.S. in computer science, and I have an idea for a computer security white paper.  It essentially builds on top of another white paper's security mechanism.  It would propose an alternate application of the security mechanism, and it would also add an extra feature to the security mechanism, which would be necessary for the alternate application.
Is that sufficient to write a non-academic white paper about?
From research that I have done on reasons for writing non-academic white papers,  I have gathered they are essentially used to inform people, and persuade people making business decisions.
The real reason I would like to write this white paper is so I can ultimately get into a Master's program or PhD program.  Could writing a non-academic white paper offset a less than desirable GPA due to classes in my minor?  I have also heard that 5 years of experience in Industry could be enough to get into a Master's Program, which I almost have.
Also, would it be possible to get a grant with the proposal?
I also have a question about white paper verification.  Is it necessary to have a working prototype to publish the white paper?  I don't think it would be useful to redo the work that was done in the previous white paper, but would need to be done to build a prototype of course.  Could I just propose the features that would need to be added?
I have also done research on attacks that can be done on the security mechanism for the white paper I am building on top of, and I suspect these attacks could be applicable to my alternate application, but would occur in a different context.  Should I write about that as well? Or should I leave that for a separate paper?
Thanks for your time answering any of these questions.
Edit2
Someone answered my questions, so making it the original post.

Compared to an academic publication, the main problems with publishing a white paper are the following:

There is no dissemination channel. White papers are usually issued by experts, institutions or companies which already have a reputation and the means to reach an audience. Unless you already have a reputation in the field, it might be difficult to make your white paper reach its audience. If experts don't know about it, it won't have any impact and it won't be evaluated.
There is no peer review process before publication. So unless a few experts pick it up after publication and evaluate the content, publishing a white paper does not prove your skills to any non-expert (or to any expert who didn't read it). In other words, I can write something on my blog and call it a "white paper", it doesn't mean it has any value to anyone.

Is this white paper worthy?

If you have a solution to these two problems, i.e. if there is a reasonable chance to make your paper known, discussed and evaluated, then it could be a valuable advantage when applying for a PhD.

Could writing a non-academic white paper offset a less than desirable GPA due to classes in my minor? I have also heard that 5 years of experience in Industry could be enough to get into a Master's Program, which I almost have.

It's impossible to say because PhD applications depend on so many things. In general an industry experience tends to make academic grades less relevant.

Also, would it be possible to get a grant with the proposal?

That's something to discuss with a potential PhD supervisor.

I also have a question about white paper verification. Is it necessary to have a working prototype to publish the white paper?

A white paper is whatever you decide it is, there's no requirement. However you probably want to make it as convincing as possible, it's up to you to evaluate the value of a prototype in this perspective.

I have also done research on attacks that can be done on the security mechanism for the white paper I am building on top of, and I suspect these attacks could be applicable to my alternate application, but would occur in a different context. Should I write about that as well? Or should I leave that for a separate paper?

That's way too specific to be answered here. You'd have to discuss this with an expert, typically a potential PhD supervisor.