text:
How can I best make an impression to a professor advertising for a research role in his lab
While my job hunt which started a couple of weeks ago has been positive, there are nothing intimately related to my background in mathematics and physics.
While my grades aren't stellar (2.8/4.0), I've a strong interest in mathematical modelling of physical systems, strong reference and one good grade in a final year scientific research project I did.
Today, I was informed by a recruiter that a position in atmospheric research has opened up in my local university and, with a bit of detective work, I managed to find the hiring professor-great
In his personal webpage, he was open to applicants dropping him an email before making any formal applications.
While I have dropped him a short introduction expressing my interest, how should I make an impact should I be invited to meet him? It means a lot to me to be doing something intimately related to my academic background.

What type of position is this? Undergraduate, PhD, postdoc? Are you still an undergraduate?

@astronat This is an associate level position for anyone who have completed his/ her undergraduate degree in the stipulated field as advertised.
No, I have recently graduated.
From where I come from, there are positions for graduates of a BSc to work alongside researchers while being paid an amount as  if they were industry, all things being equal

You're going to make a pitch.  Think of it as an email equivalent of an "elevator pitch."  Make sure your pitch shows that you have familiarized yourself with what his group does.


text:
Changing ordering of authorship in a proceeding
In the field of applied math where a paper has been accepted for a conference presentation (talk), is it common for the ordering of the authors to be changed for a proceeding that entails thereafter?

Changed by who? Math typically uses alphabetical ordering of names.

Presumably, the OP means for the corresponding conference paper that will appear in the proceedings?

Also, do you want to know whether it is common (as you have asked), generally acceptable, or possible? For common, I suspect answers will be subjective, because I doubt datasets exist. For generally acceptable, it is still somewhat subjective. I'd argue yes, it is generally acceptable (in some fields), because many conferences don't define rules on changing the author order (whereas journals more typically do). For possible, the answer is yes. If the rules don't forbid it, then just do it, otherwise, ask permission.

@Buffy: Not in applied math.

@WolfgangBangerth, thanks.I learn something new every day.

Why do you want to change it?

In my experience (materials science), it is not uncommon that between the abstract submission (months before the conference) and the submission of the conference proceedings (at or after the conference) that the scope of the talk and paper may well change. This may result in adding new authors or shuffling the order of authors. It can be a moving target.

@lordy because the workload and principal academic contributions by the authors is no longer in tandem with the ordering of their authorship. My question is whether is ground for a negotiation.

Does it matter that much? In my field, unless you're changing the first author, your position on the author list at a conference matters very little.

My experience is it is no big deal provided the papers are not set for publishing. I would consider it similar to any other minor edit to the paper. If it can be done logistically fine.  If it requires review, and authors wouldn't, not fine.

Here is a quite frequently occurring extreme case which may help you evaluate your own situation:
As @JonCuster also mentioned in their comment, there is always plenty of time between the abstract submission and the presentation itself, and the work typically evolves a lot during that period. Imagine it evolved such that new collaborators were added. Adding new names in there may change the list of authorship a lot. Imagine also that you actually submitted the manuscript by the time you present it, of course with the co-authors on it. In the conference, strictly adhering to the list of authors submitted in the abstract would mean removing your new co-authors, which should be out of question as it is best practice to give them credit as co-authors of your work. Thus, the list of authors can definitely change during the actual presentation as one is usually entitled to also present improvements to one's work. Whether it is common in your field, I don't know, but my guess would be that it is not too rare.

In general it is not possible to change the order of authorship once a piece of work is accepted at a conference/journal etc. This is for several reasons:

Authors should think about the order of the authors before they
submit and if the work contributions afterwards change then this
work is normally not part of the submission and what counts is what
was submitted on not if further work was put into it later.
The reluctance to change authorships also comes from the fact that
sometimes authors try to get their name of a fraudulent paper and
this is something journals want to avoid at all.

If you can prove exceptional circumstances and all other authors agree (in writting) you might have a change by writing to who ever is in charge. But this should only be done if really necessary and you have a really good reason.

Is having two first authors an alternative to havin one first author?

Yes, you can put "shared" but be aware that it then will most of the time count just half as well.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Academic reference for employment
If a Professor has explicitly stated that he is open to being a reference for a summer scholarship application, would it be reasonable to assume that he would be alright with the same candidate citing him as a reference for future employment?

It is at least likely, but is there any reason not to confirm this with a quick email? It's generally a bad idea not to let your references know that they might get a call.

I tell my students, "You have to let me know before you give my name as a reference.  Otherwise, I might think they're trying to sell me something and blow them off."

Honestly, you should make no assumptions about what other people think, whatever we are talking about. People are just too very different.
I think that you should ask your professor, simply as that.
And good luck for you!

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


text:
How to write a postdoc research statement when your interests are unrelated to your dissertaiton, or unknown
I am a last-year graduate student in physics in the United States. As I write my dissertation, I am also reading example research statements for inspiration, and the common format has been to introduce oneself in terms of one's research interests, relate that to one's dissertation work, and subsequently segue into relevant research accomplishments.
The way I usually characterize my research interests is roughly in terms of what is important to me, and what I enjoy doing. I enjoy the art of using mathematics to solve physical problems, generally in the sense of translating from a physical model or physical intuition, to mathematical formalization and derivation, and back to the physical meaning of the results. What is important to me is that my research has a positive societal application, especially with regard to the energy crisis, though this criterion can be taken fairly broadly as long as I don't feel my research is just going to sit on a shelf.
My work thus far includes three projects, two of which I hardly cared for until after I'd worked with them for several months. As I sift through postdoc offerings, none of the ones that actually interest me are closely related to my dissertation work. Most are in the same subfield as I've been working in, which is traditional condensed matter theory, but I'd even like to try branching out from there, and applying possibly to biophysics, soft condensed matter, or something else that doesn't fit neatly into the usual division of physics subfields.
With this in mind, how can I write an effective research statement? Here are the two ideas I've had so far. I'd very much like to hear the perspectives of others who've written or read research statements of this nature.

I can say something to the effect of "I would like to branch out and
explore new directions," but the rest of my research statement would
still be a description of what I did in my Ph.D. work. It seems an
odd juxtaposition to say, "I don't want to keep doing what I already
did," and then talk about it at length. My best guess for a way to
make this work is to instead describe what I did in the projects and
what portable skills I developed in the process.
Related to that, I can also focus on the parts of the projects that I did enjoy, such as the problem-solving process, or the reasonably clear societal benefits which one of my projects has.

How can I write a research statement that respects my desire to branch out without sounding as if I have no focus? I am still a graduate student, and have experienced so little of what is out there (especially in the areas that mean the most to me) that I am not prepared to commit to one path, and it would be disingenuous to write as if I have my career trajectory planned out.

I don't think we can help you write your research statement here.  I think you do have some misconceptions about the process.  The research statement is not about what you desire.  It is about why you should be hired.  The plan described in a research statement or grant is not a "commitment;"  it is a plausible work of fiction.

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


text:
Sociology PhD : what are the prospects of landing a job within academia?
What are the job prospects, like the likelihood of becoming a university professor, for people who pursue a Ph.D. in sociology in North America?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17431/what-ratio-of-phd-graduates-in-stem-fields-ultimately-end-up-as-tenured-profes

This will depend very much on the particular student, the PhD program, the students ability and performance in the PhD program, and unpredictable random factors.   Furthermore, past outcomes may not be at all predictive of outcomes for future students.   Thus statistics of the form "x% of entering PhD students ended up in tenure track positions 10 years later" should be taken with a grain of salt by anyone considering entering a PhD program now.

@Brian Borchers very true, but an order of magnitude estimate would still be informative. I suspect many PhD students believe their chance is closer to 0.1 than 0.001.

@BrianBorchers, the likelihood does not depend on any particular student. I suspect the OP asks for the probability: (number of PhD-graduates-seeking-academic-post)/(number of new-positions).

@Dilworth I don't think there's any sensible number for that ratio as the numerator is heavily influenced by the denominator.


text:
ABD status and tenure-track positions hiring
If a competitive Ph.D. Candidate who is ABD (All but dissertation) wants to apply to tenure-track positions despite still working on their thesis; how many months do universities usually leave for those candidates to defend and graduate after the start of the tenure-track position?

My old institution in Switzerland once hired an (outstanding) assistant professor months before they had actually defended their PhD. HR was thoroughly displeased since there was no employment category that even remotely fit, but the department head pushed and prevailed. Many things are possible if sufficiently important players in the department want to make them happen, but that doesn't mean that they are easy or likely to happen.

More generally, not just for tenure-track positions, jobs that require a PhD typically require you do have a PhD before starting work. That doesn't mean they won't go through the hiring process beforehand, but they're going to expect that before you start your job you can say you have the degree.
Some exceptions may be granted for administrative processing; for example, if you are able to complete your defense and all degree requirements but your institution only grants degrees at the end of semesters, you may find someone that will consider you as having effectively graduated.
"All But Dissertation", though, also means you are "Anything But a Doctor". Someone ABD has not earned their degree yet. The successful completion of a thesis defense is a pretty integral part of the PhD process, I wouldn't expect anyone to take it so lightly as assuming it's a mere formality. Additionally, taking a job in the meantime seems like it would increase the risk that the thesis and defense are never finished. The time starting out as a tenure-track faculty member is an especially stressful time, with many responsibilities that do not include finishing and defending a thesis.
Like most things, though, it's ultimately up to any individual institution unless there are specific laws that bind them.

ABD is generally meant to be "All but dissertation", meaning someone has defended their work but the thesis still needs to be finished and approved.

@WolfgangBangerth  I've typically seen ABD used when someone has completed all their non-dissertation tasks: any required courses or preliminary examinations, and any other degree requirements. That is, it would not typically indicate someone has already defended, though it could. In any event, the point I wanted to emphasize is that "ABD" means someone hasn't finished their degree.

In my experience, also, in the U.S., in math, "ABD" does not include the defense...

@WolfgangBangerth Never heard it used that way

I have only heard of ABD as standing for "all but dissertation" and this is the meaning of this abbreviation in the question.

@TerryLoring Sorry, maybe this is what Wolfgang meant, too, I was just making a joke with the abbreviation. I know what it's meant to stand for, but it also tends to be overused by some people to exaggerate accomplishments, when it really just means that the absolutely most important part of your degree isn't done yet.

@BryanKrause Apparently people use the term in different ways then :-) In any case, the OP was clear in their question. It did note the little joke and appreciated it!

@Bryan Krause I got your point, finally.  You are correct that ABD is a often used to exaggerate  .

I got offered my current position before completing my defense. In my offer, it stated that if I didn't finish my degree before the start date, I would be placed in a non-tenure track position. Then I would automatically be appointed to a tenure-track position when my degree was complete. Fortunately I managed to graduate beforehand.

Given the competition for faculty positions, let alone ones on tenure track, I find it hard to imagine that many colleges or universities would even interview an ABD, let alone make a job offer.

@Llaves The commenter right above you is one example. In some fields and for some positions (especially at primarily instructional rather than research institutions) it's common to hire people directly out of PhDs, in others it's completely unheard of and everyone does some sort of postdoctoral position. For those who hire without post doc experience, it's likely that almost everyone they interview does not have their degree quite yet.

@BryanKrause - yes, I saw that comment. But that doesn't alter the fact that this is rare, as the first line of your answer suggests. The OP asks how long they might be given after starting work to complete their thesis. As your answer states, most institutions expect the candidate to complete their degree before beginning work. My comment suggests that it would be rare for someone not expecting to be done before the start date to even be interviewed, implicitly for this very reason.

@Llaves I agree with you there: "it would be rare for someone not expecting to be done before the start date to even be interviewed"- but that's different from not interviewing them before the degree is granted, as interviews can be months before the position starts.

@BryanKrause - this all comes back to what ABD means. In the dark ages 50 years ago when I got my PhD, ABD pretty much meant you had finished all your coursework and still had to write a dissertation. It typically suggested a much longer time to completion than the time between interviewing and the start date of the position. Those interviewing for academic positions interviewed on the basis of their thesis research and were able to present significant results. Given that competition for academic positions has only increased since then, I'd expect even stricter completion requirements.

@Llaves I think it depends on field a bit. In fields that have a lot of external funding for research, it's often necessary to have several years of additional research experience to build a sufficient resume for tenure-track. OP mentioned in another post that they're in the social sciences - lot of variation there, but in some of the social sciences far fewer people will ever be post docs than are professors, there is isn't any money for it, so no matter the competition level the people just graduating have the best academic resume they'll ever have unless hired as a professor.


text:
Can you present at a conference without original data and results? (First year PhD Student)
I was invited to speak at a national conference. The theme is exactly related on my doctoral work, and they really insisted on wanting my expertise because not many people are working specifically on this topic. I said yes, I could not say no to this opportunity.
The thing is that I don't have original data yet (I am a first-year Ph.D. student), and am wondering what I will be able to present. I have already presented my master's thesis at local, national and international conferences and I can't present it anymore in my opinion.
My advisor suggested that I could talk about the context/background for my PhD research. I'm hesitant to jump into the methodology part because I don't want this idea to get scooped since I am such in the early stages of my doctoral program.
Anyone have tips or advice?

Consider both “yes and no” in future... some hate woolly presentations without anything concrete thinking there are people with interesting results who missed an opportunity for that.

First of all, congrats on being invited to speak! Would it be possible for you to give a broad review of the state of the field in your talk? This should perhaps be run by the conference organizers who invited you, to see if this is something they would be interested in. But your comment about:

The theme is exactly related on my doctoral work, and they really insisted on wanting my expertise because not many people are working specifically on this topic

makes me think that your insights on the state of the field might be precisely what the organizers are interested in. And in reviewing the state-of-the-art, presumably your masters work would be one example, but not the entirety of the talk.
I think this suggestion:

My advisor suggested that I could talk about the context/background for my PhD research.

would also fit nicely in such a talk.
Regarding your concern:

I'm hesitant to jump into the methodology part because I don't want this idea to get scooped since I am such in the early stages of my doctoral program

if you choose to do a "review" talk, then I think you can focus on what you see as the remaining problems in the field, and then see how much of your intended methodology seems to be "trivial" or "obvious" given those problems, since it's sharing publicly the "nontrivial" ideas that you might need to worry about. Certainly if there's anything patentable in your methodology, you should discuss with your advisor how to go about protecting the ideas before the talk.
Otherwise, I think presenting (and claiming!) the ideas at the conference might actually be helpful for your PhD work. For instance, you might have some attendees ask you if they can collaborate with you on your ideas, and/or you might get some useful feedback on them (e.g., "have you seen this relevant paper?", "did you consider this challenge?", etc.).


text:
How long decision in process normally takes?
I have submitted a manuscript to a journal on September after few days the status changed to under review and after 5 months the it changed to all required reviews are completed and immediately to decision in process. It has been 3 weeks that the paper status stuck at decision in process. How long this stage normally takes ?  is it too early to ask the editor (?) about the status of my paper?

No, it is not too early. "Decision in progress" means all the reviews have already been received and what's left is for the editor to make a decision. 3 weeks is pretty long for this. I would write to the journal asking for a status update.

@Student it means the editor is making a decision and you can expect to receive it within a few days.

@Student don't think it says anything. 5 days is not overly long when the editors are busy academics. Also, relax - regardless of what happens, there's nothing you can do now.

@Student the next status is usually 'revise', 'accept' or 'reject' as per the decision. Yes the decision should be written in the website. If it shows 'decision in process', no decision has been made yet.

@Student "Decision in Progress" might take 2 weeks maybe? If it takes longer than that you can email the journal to ask. "Under editor evaluation" means the editor - not the reviewers - is the one with something to do. In your case I'd guess that all the reviewers were submitted and the handling editor had to make a recommendation to the editor-in-chief.

@Student that's the decision then: "minor revision". Congrats! You can ask your supervisor for the reviews and comments if you're interested.

@Student https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109460/can-i-correct-a-mistake-that-the-reviewers-didnt-spot-in-a-paper-that-has-not-b

@Student there's no way to tell. If the revisions are minor the editor might make a decision without inviting reviewers, in which case it could be quite short; however if the editor chooses to invite reviewers then it could be months.

@Student is the mistake major? If it's minor (e.g. a misspelled word) it won't cause any problems. If it's major, then you should mention it to the editor in the resubmission, and he or she might might need to invite reviewers. It won't cause a rejection, but it might take time.

@Student sounds to me like it's pretty minor and the editor wouldn't need to get it reviewed again. I don't have anything more to say though. Either way the only thing to do is wait. You could get an accept decision tomorrow, or it could be two months from now.

@Student you mean you didn't write you were making this change in your response to reviewers? If so, it's possible the editor feels you're being deceptive which could lead to rejection. Still, since the reviewer was very positive, I think acceptance is much more likely.

@Student yup, it means the editor hasn't seen your paper yet. The editor's been invited, but hasn't accepted the invitation. It shouldn't be long before the status changes.

@Student it means the editor chose to invite reviewers to evaluate your revision, which could mean you'll need another 1+ month before you get a decision.

@Student no idea. Wait for the editor's response. Seriously, stop worrying, it's not like you can do anything anyway.

Dear professor Allure. Today the status is ''Required Reviews Completed''. The status under review takes 20 days. The next status will be decision in process? Thanks a lot for your help.

@Student yes the next status is decision in process.

Dear Professor Allure. My paper has been accepted for publication. Now I submited another paper to springer journal and the status is '' reviewers assigned''. Is this means that it is ''under review"? Thank you very much.

@Student congrats. Yes, that status is about the same as "under review".

Dear Professor, I have submitted a new paper to elsivier journal. From 6 jul to 30 jul, the status is ''with editor''.  1 Aug 2018 the statut is ''under review''. However today  3 Aug 2018, the stauts ''is decision in process''. It is possible to get acceptance only after two days with reviewers? Notice that my paper is very short.

@Student It's possible, although rejection is more likely.

Dear Professor, I hope you are fine. Please I have a question. I submitted a paper to a springer math journal since 4/7/2018. From 24/2/2019 the status of the paper is ''reviewers completed'' however I don't receive the decision. Do you advise me to contact the editor? Thanks a lot for your help.

@Student as always, if you're concerned, ask the editor, otherwise be patient. In your case it's only been 3 weeks which is apparently not that long in math (I'm not a mathematician and don't know). You could ask a more senior colleague whether it's out of the ordinary. If it is, then yeah, contact the editor.

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


text:
Applying for a job as a PhD student
I started my PhD upon the acceptance to my current university because this got so many people excited about me, and I didn't want to disappoint them. I finished my PhD coursework with excellent marks, and I made speedy progress in my research which made my PhD supervisor very happy. However, my supervisor's research area is not something that I want to work in for the rest of my life and I got depressed because as a PhD student, I am working so hard, day and night, towards the outcome that I don't really want. I am currently in 2nd year of my PhD program.
I expressed this to my supervisor and he told me that he doesn't want me to make spontaneous decisions since I am doing so well in my PhD program and that I am making a speedy progress. My supervisor suggested me to take 4 month medical leave, and I took that offer.
However, more I think of my issue more I want to pursue my dream of working in Clinical Research Organization (CRO) as a statistician/statistical programmer. Over the break, I have successfully acquired industry professional certifications that CRO firms often look for, and I am ready to apply for entry-level jobs at CRO firm. I am still on the medical leave from my PhD program, although the leave is almost over (note: my medical leave is unpaid leave. All my TA/RA/Scholarship funding has been suspended during my medical leave).
When I resume my academic program in January (a new semester), I actually have no intention to continue in the PhD program. I will be applying for the job at CRO firms, and if I get a job I am intending to quit.
I am wondering whether I should just tell my PhD supervisor about my feelings/plans and quit the PhD program before I apply for any jobs? or should I remain as a PhD student even though I am not intending to stay in the program, until I get an actual job offer?
Thank you,

Are you completely committed to leaving the PhD program? Not my field, but it seems like a career in clinical research would benefit from a PhD, even if the PhD isn't in the exact area you want to pursue long-term.

Also: is there any way to switch into a terminal master's track?

Hello, in my country, a Master's degree is a requirement before entering a PhD program. So as a PhD student, I already have my Master's degree.

The job I am intending to apply for is statistical programmer positions, which only requires master's degree in my field.

To me, I think that stay on PhD program while applying jobs just complicates the issues even more, as if I stay in the PhD program, I will be receiving TA/RA funding from my department as well as the government scholarship for being a full-time PhD student, so if I find an employment then I am not sure how these issues would sort out.

Get a new job first, then quit.

Thanks for info. I understand the job you're currently applying for doesn't need a PhD, but I think you should also consider the opportunities you might want to pursue 10+ years from now (the answer might well be the same, but it 's something to consider). At any rate, your actual question seems to be covered by Leaving PhD program to apply for industry job - better to apply while still officially enrolled? and/or How to tell my advisor that I am quitting my PhD....

Why would you leave before having a new job?


text:
Is it advisable to do a postdoc in statistical genetics after a statistics PhD in machine learning/deep learning?
Is it advisable to do a postdoc in statistical genetics or other similar medical disciplines (e.g. medical neuroimaging) if I have a statistics PhD in machine learning/deep learning? I really wanted to be involved in applying statistics in medical disciplines, but my life just didn't pan out this way.
My concern is that I have no previous training in Computational Biology/Bioinformatics/Genetics.
I think the problem I have is:

Either these are too big of a transition and I won't be able to get much out of the postdoctoral fellowship with the limited time period (not getting much published), or
Perhaps it will be too hard for me to get a postdoc in those fields since I don't have the adequate biology background.

Thank you,

A big part of the PhD degree is that you have learned to learn.  If you have a PhD in statistics/machine learning then I see no reason that you could not rapidly learn the material required for statistical applications in medicine/genetics.  So long as you are doing statistical things (e.g., statistical genetics as opposed to the biology/medical aspects) then this falls very close to your existing expertise, and the additional learning is likely to consist primarily of learning new statistical distributions/models, which will be something you are well trained to do.
To the extent you need to learn genetics to understand the statistical models applying to genetics (which is much less than you might think), you ought to be able to learn the basics rapidly enough to communicate with geneticists in your projects.  Most of your work is likely to be interdisciplinary, where you do the statistical work and geneticists do the genetics work.  Likewise, if you publish in this field then the geneticists will write up all the parts of the paper pertaining to their subject and you will write up the parts of the paper pertaining to your subject.
One of the great things about statistics is that you can enter a field and assist with data analysis with surprisingly little background in the subject.  You often need to learn the basics, and interrogate the problem to learn how the data is being sampled, etc., but the burden is smaller than you might imagine.  Moreover, other applied statisticians have written books in these fields that introduce the statistical models of interest, with the relevant scientific background for the field, so you can pick it up quickly.  Statistical genetics requires you to know just enough about genetics to understand why the statistical models are formulated the way they are (which is very little) and then the rest is standard math/stats work that is squarely within your training.  Take heed of the immortal words of the great John Tukey: "The best thing about being a statistician is that you get to play in everyone's backyard."


text:
Do PhD students sometimes abandon their original research idea? If so, how do they cope with it?
This might be a silly question to ask, but I initially had a great research ideas in mind during the early part of my PhD program but due to the unexpected circumstances I now think that I have to abandon them and start searching for new ideas from scratch (2 of my ideas were taken by other researchers in my field recently and I don't think I have capability to work on my other idea), which I find really depressing.
Does this normally happen for PhD students? If so, how do they cope with it? Do they just start all over again from the literature search and brainstorm for ideas?
Thank you,

Well, abandoned mine because the U.S. military decided it was a secret.  I could start over, or apply for, and pay for, a security clearance.  (Started over.)

My entire full first year was "wasted" (got a paper out of it) on something that did not even made it to my thesis. Learned a lot I guess :)

I almost did - I abandoned it after about a year to work on more promising ideas, then by chance came across a new product that filed a small but crucial hole and allowed the original experiment to be possible after all.  I probably know more people who changed their direction significantly than didn't.

I don't think I know any PhD student that never abandoned an idea. Heck, my drafts folder is full of notes and half-finished papers that I developed as a tenure-track or tenured faculty, which never saw the light of day and likely never will. Research isn't a straight line.

I worked on three problems. It was a three-bears issue. One was too easy (many results every day). One was too hard (brick wall - no progress). The third was "just right": both hard and significant.

@AnderBiguri It was not "wasted", it still is a good achievement. The particular work might not contribute to the overall human knowledge, but it was important for you personally. That is why I think choosing the topic based on personal interest is important: Even if you do not get much out of it officially, you did it for yourself. :)

BTW, I "dealt with it" by working with my advisor and moving on to the next possible problem. I was also "smart enough" to abandon the first two problems early.

I entered the Ph.D. program intending to specialize in topology. I ended up working in set theory. I don't think the change did any harm.

Just want to say talking to your advisor can be important here. They (supposedly) have much more experience and a larger network, and may be better able to judge which research will lead somewhere/nowhere, what is already being done by others, etc. Of course,  no matter how good the advisor, there are no guarantees.

I wouldn't call it abandoned, but one year into my PhD I changed my topic. It's still machine learning related and still in my industry field (the built environment) but the focus moved from time series modelling for control applications to inference of ontologies from metadata. I think it's fairly common

Not only does this happen frequently to PhD students, it also happens occasionally to experienced researchers.  Many research projects are embarked upon in a somewhat speculative manner, where we do not really know what the answer to a question will look like until we get there.  Sometimes we get stuck and cannot get the answer to our research question, sometimes we get the answer but it is so trivial that we realise we were thinking about the scope of the problem incorrectly, and sometimes we get the answer and we then find out that others have already figured out and published the same answer before us (which is something that does not always show up in your initial literature review).
It is less common for experienced researchers to completely abandon projects, because we have pretty good a priori judgement of what will work, and we are also good at salvaging work if it does not turn out as planned.  Moreover, many academics tend to put unsuccessful projects "on hold" and come back and think about them periodically to see if they can be changed in some way to give fruitful research.  During my own PhD candidature and my subsequent research career as an academic, I have started and done work on several topics which I have subsequently "put on hold" or altered to such a degree that the initial topic was essentially abandoned.  I have had other topics where I did a whole lot of research, even wrote up a paper, and then subsequently found that I had merely rediscovered results that were already in the literature (under a name I was not familiar with).  I also have probably ten or twenty started ideas sitting around and stalled because I have encountered some roadblock that may or may not be fatal to the future of the project.  As you will see from some examples below, I have had some absolute doozies.
Mine have come about because I did initial literature reviews that were flawed, and I didn't realise that my research ideas were things that were already well-developed in the literature (under technical names I was not familiar with).  In terms of how you cope, well, you look at the silver lining --- often these aborted projects show that you are "on the right track" in terms of your ability to come up with interesting ideas, even though these do not pan out into publications.  If you are developing projects that are good enough for other researchers to "take them" then that means you are on the right track.  (In my case, other researchers were nefarious enough to steal my ideas and complete them decades before I was born!)  It is depressing when you think you have a great idea and then it turns out not to lead to anything, but you look on the bright side --- it is better than having no good ideas at all.

Some (kind of embarrassing) examples from my own research career
Rediscovering the theory of identifiability: When I was in the first year of my PhD in statistics I came across an interesting problem that I thought would be a wonderful PhD topic and I spent many months solving it and writing up an academic paper for a journal.  I was extremely happy with my paper and thought it would be a big deal, since it seemed to me that I had developed an important concept that would be a great addition to statistics.  A couple of weeks later I got a desk rejection from the journal, and the editor was kind enough to gently inform me that while my paper looked very interesting, and was well written, my ideas "look a lot like the theory of identifiability" (a term I had not heard of at that time).  Using this new term I did another quick literature search and discovered a huge literature; my own paper had essentially rediscovered an important mathematical/statistical concept that was already developed and published in about the 1950s-1960s.  I had managed to get through my undergraduate degree without hearing this term, and so it had not shown up in my initial literature search, and my supervisors also did not alert me to it when I showed them what I was working on.  So, I have the "distinction" of being one of the discoverers of the theory of identifiability (never published), which I discovered about fifty years after its original publication!  It was depressing at the time because I had done a lot of work on it, but now I look back and laugh about it.
Rediscovering the theory of constrained optimisation via penalty functions: This one came a bit after I had finished my PhD, when I was an early career academic.  I had done a bunch of work on constrained optimisation (Karesh-Kuhn-Tucker method, etc.) and I had thought of an idea of an alternative way of doing constrained optimisation that I thought was novel.  Again, I tried searching for it in the literature, but I used the wrong words so it didn't show up.  (I think I was calling the method "optimisation via augmentation" which is not its standard name.)  I spent my Christmas holidays working on a paper on my method, and was happy with how it developed.  When the paper was almost finished, by accident (when looking at another problem) I found a reference to a paper that led me to another paper that alerted me to the literature on optimisation via penalty functions.  I had a look at the papers I had found and boom --- another project destroyed.  From memory, this stuff was done in about the 1970s, so this time I was a mere forty years late to the party!  In this second case I did not submit my (almost finished) paper, so it sits on my computer as a fun little reminder of my Christmas rediscovering penalty function methods.

As an undergrad I rediscovered Fords algorithm (luckily found it afterwards in literature research)

Really appreciated this answer. I’ve often found that my initial ideas when I’m getting interested in a topic start in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and as I get more fluent and deeper they advance towards the present day. It’s a sunny experience and agree that, like yours, makes you feel that your treading a good path, even if you’re decades behind the current state of the topic!

Some myths speak of the "power of names"; having the true name of a thing gives magical power over it. What a difference being told a couple of key names would have made here.

Indeed.  One of the difficulties in technical fields is that you get these strange names (e.g., "identifiability") that you would never guess if you haven't already heard them.  It makes literature searches a bear!

These are indeed examples of abandoned research, but I think atypical ones. Abandoned research is more often because it's going nowhere than because it replicates a known result (or project).

Your examples, while only being two data points, bring up an interesting idea. Plot how far behind your independent inventions are over time. Hopefully, you get a plot like this: https://xkcd.com/2014/, meaning that all your research will be innovative after a certain point!

A famous case: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/9602/9052

As a field ecologist, I've seen this happen multiple times. You could imagine any field-based research project is at the mercy of the elements and is often fraught with random variables that might turn out too unwieldy or unpredictable to control for effectively. At best, a field-ecology PhD student may determine after a single field season that the project won't work out (or won't result in easily publishable outcomes) and they switch gears. At worst, this could take multiple years to become apparent (especially if the subject of study takes a long time to grow or the research project relies on periodic or climatic occurrences). I've even seen a student start 4 different projects during one PhD!!
In most cases, I've simply seen the student cope by extending the length of their PhD additional years.

If the "bad" field season occurs in year 1, then I think a lot of the time no additional length is typically needed, and the student simply changes gears and works efficiently for their remaining 4-5 years.

This could involve redesigning the study, "retrying" in the 2nd field season with the new improved design, and working their tail off to finish on time

If it occurs in year 2, I think there's still usually enough time to jump into another equally-involved project and extend the length of the PhD for another year or two.

If it happens in years 3-4, I've seen the student shave off a much less interesting aspect of their original question and involve a much simpler sampling design. In fact, I've seen on a handful of occasions where the student scrapped their own field component and simply analyzed available existing data or shifted to more of a metanalysis approach.

In doing so, the student still typically adds 1-2 years to their PhD, but they finish in a "reasonable" amount of time (for a field ecologist :p).

In any scenario, especially after a bust field season in year 2 or beyond, I don't think it's too unusual  for the student to switch gears to a degree and try piggy-backing on another lab project or extending a previous lab member's work in a novel way. In either case, most of the infrastructure and knowledgebase is available, so they can move on at a more accelerated pace compared to "starting over."
Don't get me wrong: this is a frustrating (and professionally "scary") occurrence for any student or researcher. But take solace in the fact that through the process, most students typically still have completed any necessary coursework, passed qualifying exams, built a committee of (hopefully) useful individuals, and have developed a professional and social circle by the time of their project abandonment. (I hope this can be said of you, too).

These processes account for a large part of what a graduate student typically needs to accomplish (i.e., they accounts for a lot of the initial time and stress in the early years of a PhD), so having accomplished these "tasks" means that you have additional time and support (not to mention personal knowledge and experience) that you didn't have when you first started the PhD. This means that you can hit the ground running, work efficiently, and hopefully tackle a "new" project much quicker and more effectively than your first abandoned project.

Ultimately, many of us want want our dissertations to be hugely influential or to define us in some significant way so when we leave graduate school we can find that amazing job. This is fair and certainly works for some individuals. However, you, like many of us, will likely still bounce around 1 or more post-docs, assistant professor positions, or industry jobs prior to landing your "dream job." In other words, you've still got time to define yourself and increase your research cred beyond your dissertation. Make the best of the situation, and focus time on forming strong professional relationships through conference meetings, symposia, committees, outreach, etc. Often times having a strong professional network (and demonstrated ability to pick yourself up, work your tail off, and still accomplish a goal) will still help you land a job somewhere.

I'm an early career researcher in my second year of PhD — but by all accounts this is the rule not the exception. I had a strong PhD research proposal which earned me a scholarship (and that I was very attached to) but to my surprise all my supervisors and some other academics really pushed me to explore beyond that idea — ultimately with me developing something far more unique which was only tangentially related to my initial proposal. However, where I landed is far closer to a deeper line of inquiry that ultimately brought me to academia in the first place. In many ways, I'd developed my initial research proposal because I thought it made a "strong research proposal" — but I'd neglected to consider how deeply it engaged me. My supervisors kept questioning "who is this research for?" and "go wild" and offering that the best new knowledge comes from deeper and perhaps more personal lines of inquiry.
Read the literature for inspiration, don't get obsessed looking for "the gap" or you'll never see it. Eureka moments don't occur under duress. Sometimes when you feel like you've been left with nothing, you're in a more optimal position to take more risk. Risk is the most liberating thing for finding new knowledge. Good luck!

This has happened to some friends of mine (in Organic Chemistry) - who had a target of part of a natural product to synthesise, using some novel methodology. Less than 3 months into starting, several papers were published using the same novel methodology on the same products. Fortunately though (despite PhDs being only 3 years in the lab here) this was not such a setback as their PI had other targets and ideas in mind; and they sucessfully defended within 4 years of starting.

I positively invite you to keep track of the development of these ideas as your brainchildren. Please do reflect at a meta level on when, how, and possibly why they came about.
A selection of questions. What made you feel it was worth pursuing them? Which connections did you envisage? Why did the path across the dots appeared self-evident and alluring? Which hypotheses did you test and which not? Which positive/negative state of mind did the situation stimulate? Where did you insist banging your head on in spite of adverse hints? Where did not you crossed an already open door? And so on, and so forth.
Keep a log of your research. Revisit your failures, turn them into the conscious development of your own method of exploring stuff. They are no failures, more a blessing in disguise. Blessings in disguise are seldom time-efficient.

It is not exactly a rare occurrence but it is certainly a major mistake that could have, may, should have been identified by your advisors. One of the primary roles of an advisor is to ensure that their students are building their doctoral research on a solid foundation. This is a crucial responsibility as the propagation of errors, which could have easily been rectified, resolved, or circumvented with early intervention, can easily undermine years of rigorous and fastidious research and analysis.
Other than a waste of your time and their money, however, the only major consequence is demoralization. The severity of the issue and what it will take to readress the situation to get back on track is hugely dependent upon several factors: the discipline and specific area of research; the proportion of prior research that can be repurposed once you have formulated an alternative focus; how quickly you can rebuild your momentum, but mostly it will depend on your own creativity. I don't think your advisors have served you well up to this point but perhaps they could finally make themselves useful; ask them if you can do a cursory examination of any unpublished data generated by former pupils.
I was very creative and hard working in my PhD program and I used the same approach as I always do in life, which is the three-tier strategy. I had work that was bland and boring but would surely satisfy all the requirements for publication but would require dozens of pages of bullshit jargon to church it up enough for a thesis. I also had a very promising project that was novel, interesting, and had the potential to help a lot of people. The third project was what I played around with on the side, used my own money to fund it, and it was a "Hail Mary" pass; high risk but very high reward.
I realize you've put all your eggs into one basket and your advisors forgot to mention that you can't do a thesis if someone else is already doing it. Perhaps it'll help shift your perspective on how to approach goals, have preformed contingency plans and exit strategies, and how you shouldn't trust the advice, work, data, or conclusions of anyone unless you have personally verified its veracity. If you walk away from this with that paradigm shift then I would suggest that you have learned more in your PhD than most. Good luck, go find some smart creative people in your field and do some brainstorming and you'll be back to the grindstone in no time at all.


text:
Can someone with only a master's degree promoted to a permanent full-time faculty at a two-year college?
Long story short, I am a master's graduate it statistics, and I recently applied to enrol in a local two-year college program to land a job in my rural hometown (I prefer to have a career in my rural town than in a bigger city, due to personal health and other circumstances). The admission secretary at the local two-year college saw my educational credentials and forwarded my transcripts to the dean of the two-year college's university transfer program. The dean called me on my cell and wanted to interview me for a part-time instructor position. I passed the interview and I will be start teaching introductory university math/stat courses at the two-year college in near future.
As a person who is just starting out in the two-year college teaching career, I am wondering whether the fact that I only have a master's degree in statistics and not Ph.D. would later prevent me from becoming a permanent full-time faculty at this two-year college. The dean of the university transfer program has a Ph.D. in medicine, and I see some other faculty members who have Ph.D. in their teaching disciplines. Primarily, this college offers two-year programs in trades, social work, and nursing, and this college does not offer any bachelor's degree program (although they do offer a transfer program to 4-year university).
Do two-year rural colleges like this promote instructors with a master's degree to a permanent full-time faculty if they teach well? or does such a promotion typically only restricted to instructors with Ph.D.? I am located in Canada.
Thank you,

I think that, in the US, at least and likely Canada, this is a purely local question. You can ask any college what their requirements are for promotion and whether there are any exceptions if they are strict. I think you will get different answers from different places. For 4 year colleges and universities there may be more uniform requirements, but with some exceptions allowed.

You should take a look at the faculty credentials at this institution and similar ones (in Canada). Their websites should provide this information. You can see whether any permanent faculty have only master's degrees.
After you have taught for a year, and presumably done a good job, you might ask the administration about the possibility of a permanent appointment.


text:
How do I turn down postdoc offer for an industry job?
So I am in a bit of an unusual situation. I will be graduating this summer and I have been in touch with a professor for a couple of months about postdoc positions in his research group. He encouraged me to write proposals for fellowships to fund my postdoc stint with him. Since these fellowships were very competitive and I stood a low chance of getting them, he promised me a year of funding if none of the fellowships came through. Unfortunately, none of them came through. We talked about the situation last week and he suggested that I join his group and write grant proposals during the first year to fund my second year. Now that seems like a very bad idea to me because I am also supposed to publish papers and plan for what comes after my postdoc. It's also problematic because I am an international student in the USA and I would go out of legal visa status pretty fast if things go bad and I become unemployed after my first year.
I haven't expressed any of these concerns to the professor yet [my fault, I was too shy]. However, I have been applying to industry jobs on the side and was recently made an exciting job offer. I have about a week to sign their papers which I intend to do. My question is, how do I communicate all of this to the professor? He is a very nice guy, seems super helpful and is a big name in the field but going the postdoc route seems risky and stressful at this point.

You won't be the first student to change your plans based on a job offer. Just let your professor know quickly and professionally, like you would any other potential employer that you are turning down.

To add to Jake's comment, what you say in your question seems to be very convincing to me. I think the professor would be okay if you politely approach him with your situation.

If the professor is truly a reasonable guy, he will see your perspective. Don't be shy. In fact, if this is really a nice person, I advise you to keep in touch and somehow collaborating with him professionally. Good advisors are quite rare today.


text:
How much damage would I be incurring if I turn down an informal postdoc offer?
So I have been in touch with a prof for a few months about being a postdoc in his group. He promised (verbally) one year of funding saying he was not sure if his grant proposal for my second year of funding would be successful. After being in touch with him over six months, he let me know that he the proposal has been successful and he now has funding for my second year. In the mean time, my opinion about being a postdoc and going the academic route have changed quite a bit due to family and other personal circumstances and I want to move into the industry [I have an offer in hand too]. My question is, how bad would it be, in terms of loss of face, if I said no to being a postdoc with the prof? I haven't signed a contract with him or anything and all communication between us has been informal. How do I even begin to explain things to him? I haven't even given a hint to him so far.

@NajibIdrissi the damage being "obviously be[ing] zero," surely depends on whether the OP will remain in academic circles. (Many industrial researchers collaborate with academia and publish results at academic conferences, for instance.) Nonetheless, the OP should prioritise for their needs, not the professor's, and the professor should respect that. (The question is perhaps answered elsewhere, e.g., https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=decline+offer )

It is very unpleasant for the prof, there is no way around this. However, there are priorities in life. Do you leave academia for good? Then try to make an as apologetic, regretful and good-willed statement as you can, and move on. No he won't be happy, but that's the way it is. If you want to return to academia (do you?), it's harder. The prof, even if they rationally understand you, is unlikely to wish to work with you or support you again (sunk costs, even if we ignore emotion).

Dude, take your industry offer and don't even worry about it. These things happen. Just tell him honestly what happened. It's ok.

It's no big deal. You have competing offers. This happens in life. You can only work one job.

Since you haven't  agreed to take the job, there's no damage being done at all.  Being offered a job does not put you under any obligation to take it, in academia or otherwise.  You shouldn't feel embarrassed or awkward.  If you're sure about your decision, then it's helpful to tell the professor now.


text:
Deferring a PhD to pursue a masters after accepting it. Advice?
I have accepted a fully funded PhD offer from a very good university. In the meanwhile I have managed to secure a masters offer from another very good university. (I applied to both at the same time, but was given a masters offer a week after the funding acceptance deadline for my PhD)
The opportunity to attend two of the worlds best universities is a huge decision that will affect my future in a very significant level.
Especially given that if something where to happen in the 4 years of my PhD (change in supervisor's or personal circumstances) which would prevent me from completing the PhD, I would still have a Masters under my belt if I pursue both opportunities.
I would therefore like to defer my funded PhD start date to next year, in order to do the masters. Rather than do one or the other.
I would like your opinion and I would also like to ask for possible consequences of such an action, and how best to approach it.
(I note that suspensions of studies can be available for exceptional circumstances(including work/career opportunities). I would class the masters as a career opportunity, given that is at one of the world's best university and career focused with many industry links.)
How do I very nicely request to defer my studies by one year to pursue a masters opportunity - which will enhance my career prospects greatly?

At least at the school I attend, even when you directly into a PhD from undergrad, you still get a Masters on the way anyway.

In the UK, you will only received a PhD (unless you terminate your studies midway). The reason is more the chance study with two of world's best universities, each with their own career links. It's not often people are given offers by both, so I would like to take them up on it

Essentially, you have to choose between the two; you won't be able to do this the way you propose in your question.
There are usually only a few allowed reasons why a school will let you defer your enrollment: to fulfill a service obligation for a scholarship; to participate in a special program, such as a Rhodes, Marshall, or Fulbright scholarship; or if you have exigent medical circumstances that require you to postpone the start of your studies.
One reason that is generally not allowed is for you to study somewhere else. Just because you'd classify it as a "career opportunity," the PhD program to which you have been admitted will see it differently. They will make you decide between the two programs: if you want to enroll in the master's program, you'd have to give up your PhD admission spot, and reapply for the appropriate term in which you'd be able to start following your master's program.


text:
Is it normal for a potential supervisor to not reply to a student even after they replied before?
I enquired about a funded PhD position which was advertised on the faculty website. The application involved finding a supervisor and getting them to agree to be a potential supervisor before applying formally to the position.
I contacted the supervisor, who responded straight away, and they said that my idea sounded interesting, but that before we could discuss it further he/she would like to know more about my previous research experience.
I sent this information in an email, but have not heard anything back since (it has been 5 working days). Does this mean that he/she does not want to pursue it further, or could it be that they are simply busy and considering it?
Should I contact them again?

1 week is nothing in professor time. Conferences, marking season, a phd defence, anything can get in the way.... Even worse because the professor will probably want to read your documentation thoroughly, that takes a bit on itself.... stop second-guessing :)

@FábioDias Can you please make your comment an answer?

Is your deadline for this opportunity within a month or two? If so, a gentle nudge would be appropriate after a week. You could reply to your own email to bring it back to the top of the professor's inbox, saying something at the top like:

Dear Professor X, I am sure you are very busy, so thank you for your previous response about the PhD position. Please let me know if you would like to further discuss my research experience (details below) or the projects I hope to pursue with you.

If the deadline is extremely close (within the next two weeks?) it might be appropriate to further inquire, "Given that the application deadline is XXX, may I ask whether you are still considering me as a potential student for this PhD position?" (It would be courteous for the professor to tell you if you were out of consideration, but it also might not be necessary to ask for this clarification unless your next action hinges on the response, e.g. asking another faculty member at the institution to sponsor you.)

Edit: Advice on getting replies from busy professors suggests saying that you're "sending a follow-up in case your original message went to spam, or something similar". However, that is less plausible because you previously received a response. (Unless the attachments may have gotten it sent to a spam filter.) I'm not sure whether there is another courteous "little white lie" to deploy here rather than taking the tack of "I am sure you are very busy."

(Extended version of a comment)

One week is nothing in professor time.

Conferences, marking season, a PhD defence, anything can get in the way.... I would like to believe that I'm fairly quick, but I can't review a PhD dissertation in less than a day, not properly. Professors never have a full day for something (vacations/holidays excepted). Combine any of that with the start (or end) of a semester or just a bunch of meetings and anything can take about three weeks.
Even worse because the professor will probably want to read your documentation thoroughly and that takes a bit of time on itself....
One thing that I did find useful when I was in your shoes was to try to contact someone else that is "around" the professor. "Heavy hitter" professors usually have an administrative assistant, and they can be incredibly quick and well informed, and often nudge the professors to be quicker as well.
Postdocs or PhD students might also work, but only if you already know them beforehand.

Other than that, stop second-guessing :)

Now, one important remark is: How quickly do you need the professor to answer? Do you have any deadlines coming? If you do, you might want to "escalate" the communication. Personally, for non-urgent stuff I'll just send an e-mail. Next step, secretary via e-mail. Then secretary on the phone. Call the professor on his office, and so on...
Once I had to call my MS advisor on his personal mobile, but it was really urgent, "I need your signature now or we are out of funding" urgent.

As you say, there are two possible outcomes, roughly equally likely:

They are interested but busy. It's easy to write a mail saying "please send me more", it's a lot more work to read what you sent, check on the funding situation, think about other commitments, and make a decision about hiring you.
They are not interested after reading what you sent. At least in my field, it is EXTREMELY common for professors not to reply rather than sending a rejection.

In both cases, I think it is fine to follow up within 1-2 weeks: in the former case, it's good to show interest and keep it alive; in the latter, you have nothing to lose. I will suggest something even more concise than in the other answers:

Professor, I just wanted to follow up on this [as the deadline is next week]. Do you still think I could be a good fit for your lab? I'd be happy to drop by if you wanted to discuss in person.  Cheers, --X

(where you obviously remove the bracketed part if there is no deadline).
If they don't reply to that, I would assume it is a rejection and wouldn't pursue it further (not least of which because it's very unprofessional on the professor's part not to reply after two follow-ups).


text:
Using copyrighted images for research, not publication
Does one violate the copyright of images in any sense if one uses them in research (for example in memory tasks) and writes a scientific publication based on these data, but does not publish images in the article?
Is this part of the fair use policy?

I'm not sure this question is answerable in standard stack exchange style, since it depends on the legal jurisdictions the images were published in and the paper is to be published in, as well as the terms of any license the images were obtained under, as well as how transformative your analysis/process is. The usual advice would be "if you're worried enough to ask, consult a lawyer".

@Roland: are you sure that counts as distribution? Showing someone an image in a non-public setting isn't usually a copyright-relevant act.

@Roland: Are you conducting a lot of memory task experiments in the street? Where any rando that wanders up can participate? It may be technically "unclear", but it seems unlikely enough that your decisive tone ("that would be distribution") is overstating it a bit.

@nengel It is copyright-relevant. Showing a movie for a group of people in a non-public setting without a license can be a copyright violation.

Wait, so if I buy a poster and hang it up in the office, I'm possibly violating copyright?! That doesn't seem right... but I guess with the law, anything is possible.

While the key would seem to be to make sure that you cite the use of the images, I would also contact the creator of the images to make sure that they are fine with reusing them.  I did this while working on my dissertation, which not only secured permission, but also served as networking.

When you write up the methods to say you used a particular image, you are providing evidence that you had some copy of it and used it in the way you state. If the copyright holder is highly litigious or offended by your research, this is evidence that you did something that (they may argue) violated copyright. When you rely on copyrighted images, you are also reducing what you can show to colleagues and reducing others' ability to build on you work.
It probably depends on what country you're in and how/why the images were created and distributed by their creator. For instance, if you buy a memory game illustrated with famous cartoon characters, then use that game in your study, you are probably much safer than if you create a comparable game from pictures of those famous cartoon characters. I highly doubt you will get in any trouble unless you're using the images in a defamatory way (e.g. if the memory task induces implicit threats, or if you're measuring which copyrighted cartoon characters are most hated, and that's your main result).
Jim's answer might especially apply if the images were created by a fellow researcher and you are trying to expand on that person's work. There, you are likely to gain permission and gain professional contacts.
Ideally, in experiments going forward, you can avoid any uncertainty by using public domain images or images you made yourself. Then you can publish the images in an appendix, which may even make them standard figures for other researchers to use (and cite) in similar studies. A friend studying elementary school learners described using certain picture books in her research, but to publish her dissertation using key illustrations/page layouts, she had to write for permission and/or find comparable open source images to convey the key points.
If the particular images are extremely important, then you should justify that in the paper, and it may help you if you ever need a fair use defense. It might also make it easier to seek permission from the copyright holders to explain that the quality of their work makes it uniquely valuable for your research. E.g., you're working gaining children's trust across a language barrier and you found that using familiar characters encourages responsiveness. Or if you're looking at people's perceptions of media and you want to do experiments on reactions to real photojournalism, it would make sense to use existing pictures.
I'm not a lawyer, but there may be additional complexities depending on how you use the image. If you have to manipulate the images for your memory tasks (e.g., you edit out a detail and see if people notice), this might be more legally complex with a copyrighted image, since you are making a derivative image. And even how you present the memory task may matter: on paper with original purchased image (e.g. print from a museum store) vs. on paper with duplicated image vs. on a computer (in the U.S., might invoke Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

It seems like using a paper for research. I do not see much difference to owning a copy of the paper and reading it again and again. Or copy and paste part of it to your notes. The latter doesn't mean plagiarism as well.


text:
google scholar citation for github repository
I am preparing the code for a paper which already published (without my name on it). The code is about to release now and I was hoping to add that to my google scholar or something to keep a record of the citation. Should I put the papar in my google scholar and somehow mention I worked on the code?

Welcome to academia SE. Could you clarify your question? Specifically the part 'Should I put the papar in my google scholar and somehow mention I worked on the code?'

No, your name is not on the paper so you should not include it on a list of your publications. You can, of course, list it as an achievement/project/experience on your CV/Website/ORCID/whatever.
If you think your name should have been on the paper and you were not consulted prior to submission, you can inform the journal. This will be a quick way to make enemies of your not-quite-co-authors, however.
You can make your code "citable" (scare quotes because "citable" is being used to mean creating a version of record and a DOI for it, rather than merely being allowed to cite it). There are various repositories which will allow you to get a DOI for non-publication work, here are some examples:

GitHub/Zenodo - integrates directly with GitHub
Figshare - not just for figures, despite the name
Mendeley data - owned by Elsevier, so perhaps can have reasonable confidence in its staying power

Another option is the MethodsX journal, although you'd have to check that your work is suitable for the journal and not going to constitute double-publication. As this is a peer-reviewed journal, it gives you a higher level of "credit" than the other options above. Note, there is a mandatory open-access charge with this journal. (Or, even, if your code is distinct enough from the paper, you could look at publishing a full paper of your own in an appropriate journal; there are lots of software/code papers, even in non-CS fields.)
As you wish for the code to appear on your Google Scholar profile, you will probably need to choose MethodsX (or another Journal) as Google Scholar only indexes article-type documents. You could manually add the others to your publication list as an "other" type publication, but you won't the full suite of scholar features (citation monitoring etc.) that way.
Finally, unless the code is entirely your own work, any of the above will require communication with, consent from and credit to your collaborators (presumably those who published the paper you weren't on).

Regarding “if your name should have been on the paper”: if it was a considered decision to exclude OP from the author list, I agree that protesting would create ill will and probably accomplish nothing. If it was an oversight, it may still be possible to correct the author list with the approval of the co-authors and editor. I've seen author lists modified shortly after publication to correct mistakes.

True, although I don't think most journals (officially) allow this. In such a case, OP would want to go through the corresponding author, and not direct to the journal.


text:
Should I cancel an interview if I already have a preferable offer?
I've been on the US tenure-track job market. I finally got an offer
(let's call it A) that I am happy with.
However, I have another interview scheduled (let's call it B). I think
it is unlikely that I would prefer B over A. They are comparable in
terms of academic strength, but there are strong non-academic reasons
to prefer A.
I'm wondering if I should cancel my interview at B. On one hand, I
feel like I should go ahead with the planned interview and it would be
rude to cancel. On the other hand, it's potentially a waste of time
(also rude) given that I am unlikely to take up a potential offer from
them.
Of course, it's theoretically possible for me to pick B over A. For
example, if the details of the offer from A aren't good (still waiting
for those) and B really impresses me. But it seems unlikely given what
I know.
What is the best course of action? If I do decide to cancel, how do I
go about cancelling? What reason do I give?

If you decide to cancel, the reason you give is "I have an offer, and I have decided to accept it." That said, I agree with Pete that you should not cancel, given the degree of uncertainty you espouse in the question.

linking this related, but distinct, question: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17721/should-i-attend-a-job-interview-after-ive-already-accepted-another-offer

can you clarify what details you haven't seen? I would argue that you don't really have an offer at all unless you have the major points in writing

Do not cancel anything until you have formally accepted a formal written offer. — If you don't have a formal written offer, you don't actually have an offer.  If you haven't formally accepted the offer, you haven't actually decided to accept the offer.

If it is not written, it is not there.

Also, you shouldn't feel that you're wasting someone's time during an academic interview. You get to meet people, talk about your work, maybe go out for a dinner or drinks. Time well spent.

Related, pretty-much-duplicate since you are still waiting for the details for offer A (which implies that you actually don't have an offer A yet): How to respond to an unofficial PhD offer?

My Philosophical Answer Would you close one door when another door opens ?

I'll admit I'm in industry not academia, but one of the cardinal rules of business is you never pass up an opportunity to grow your network.

Without a written offer specifying salary, teaching load, etc., you don't truly know what the offer will turn out to be, and you should go see what "B" offers, if you are at all even remotely interested...

From my non-academic perspective, one option is to just tell B that you have (or are about to get) a nice offer from A, and let them decide if it's worth their time to try and win you over. If they really like you, they may decide it's worth the risk of wasted time; if you were on the bubble for them, they may politely suggest that A sounds like a great opportunity and you should go with it. (I'm not posting this an answer because I have no experience on academic jobs, so I don't know if this would be culturally acceptable. It happens all the time in my industry.)

I am answering based on a subtle but important point in your question. If I am misinterpreting, please let me know and I'll edit or remove my answer. You said:

I finally got an offer (let's call it A) that I am happy with

but you also said,

For example, if the details of the offer from A aren't good (still waiting for those)

To me, it sounds like you don't yet actually have an actual offer in the sense of a binding, written document - maybe it was a verbal offer? At any rate, you're admitting you don't yet have enough details to make a decision about offer A.
If that is true, I would absolutely continue pursuing option B, until such a time as you get the details (preferably written) from A that allow you to decide.
I do agree with the other answers that it would be more rude to waste their time in an interview if you already have an offer you like (versus being rude by declining the interview) but I think it is critically important to be clear with yourself about whether or not you do actually have an actual offer from A or just a verbal discussion that's gotten you excited about a potential offer you may or may not get in the near future. You have a responsibility to B to decline their interview and let them know you have another offer you're taking but you also have a responsibility to yourself to make sure you do have an official offer with terms you can agree to from A. It would be a huge shame to cancel your interview with B only to discover A retracted their offer, changed the details, or gave you additional info you were unhappy with.

I don't know about the specific case, but in general it is certainly possible to have an actual offer (in the sense that they have written that they are offering you the job, and would struggle to back out) with many missing details. Normally they don't produce a contract with your name in it until you have accepted the job.

It's not "produce a contract", but, rather "have a written (rather than verbal) offer"...

In my experience (not in academia) it's usual for employers to produce something they call an offer, but it's not an offer in terms of contract law, where an offer is something that if accepted automatically becomes a contract. A contract document that's only been signed by one of the parties is an offer.

Yes, I think there can be distinctions made between "written," "formal," etc. in terms of the offer, but regardless of the legal/contractual sense, the point is, you shouldn't count your eggs before they've hatched. If there are details about A that remain outstanding, to the extent that these details turning out poorly would make the offer unattractive, then @user90332 should continue pursuing B (while pushing A for those details). At the same time, the minute you decide that offer A is acceptable and you're going to take it, you should absolutely stop pursuing B, and let them know.

@bdsl I've seen a few employers with the (imo) bad habit of signing an employment contract that has a bunch of conditions (background check, references, etc) but having you start work right away. I've been in the situation of already working for a month by the time the contract is technically in effect...

As I see it, you should cancel if and only if you are sure that you prefer A to B.  Not having seen the terms of A's offer sounds like a good enough reason to me to continue on with the interview at B: the terms may indeed not be what you were expecting, even based on what you already know.  (Things can fall through sometimes, in both minor and major ways.)  I feel that I should also remind you that having an offer at another school of comparable academic quality is just about the best possible leverage for improving the terms of a given offer.  If you were completely sure that you would never prefer B to A then it is a bit ethically problematic to leverage B to improve A, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.
Concerning B's perspective, you write:

On one hand, I feel like I should go ahead with the planned interview and it would be rude to cancel. On the other hand, it's potentially a waste of time (also rude) given that I am unlikely to take up a potential offer from them.

From my experience (on the hiring end of about a dozen tenure track job searches), it is overwhelmingly more likely that wasting their time will be viewed as rude.  If you cancel immediately, they can immediately move on to the next candidate.  I would expect them to bear you no ill will.  They may even invite you back later.  I would have no qualms whatsoever about cancelling if you are sure you are no longer interested.

The first sentence threw me off because it had to do only with OP's preference.  Then in the body of your answer you did make clear the importance of having a tangible offer.  Could you edit your title sentence a bit?

This answer ignores the primary reason to go see B. That's that you don't know what you don't know. Always go see B because it will never be what you thought it was. Without going and preferring A over B is an underinformed preference that you should not base a decision on.

The way I'd phrase it is, would you be interviewing at B "in good faith"? Are there reasonable circumstances in which you might end up taking their offer?
If A withdrew their offer, or some detail caused you to decline A, might you accept B? Or would you likely decline both, and keep searching?
I would decline B only if you're confident you do not foresee accepting any offer they're likely to make. But if B is a viable second choice, should A fall through, then by all means continue with the interview.

I will go one step further than the other answers here. It sounds like B is a good school that you would go to if you did not get the job at A. Others have correctly said that you should not cancel the interview if you haven't received a written offer from A (and only a verbal one).
That doesn't go far enough. It is ethical to continue the interview process, even if you received the written offer from A. There are actual cases of Universities rescinding written offers, and although it opens them up to legal challenges (and the situation is rare), there are definitely scenarios where they are allowed to do this. This can happen during negotiations. For example, if they think you are asking for unreasonable terms, they can withdraw the written offer saying that the terms you were asking for showed you were a poor fit for the University. If you actually would consider B, you should continue the interview process until you signed an offer with A.
But I also agree with being completely honest and forthright as possible. One option that people have not mentioned is to inform school B that you have an informal verbal offer from another University. Tell them you are still interested in their position, and would just like to inform them of the other offer as a courtesy for both you and them, as it's in everyone's best interest to expedite the interview process if possible. If B really would be a great fit academically that you'd accept without an offer with A, you should try and speed up the process with B to see what they are like and what their offer is like.

Your rationale for not cancelling an interview that will waste your time and theirs makes so little sense that no rebuttal is necessary.
However, it would make sense to refrain from cancelling the interview in order to hedge your bets.

A possible reason for that, what the OP didn't mention, is that so he can collect some experience in the interviewing processes and communication.

@peterh  Yes, that is another one.  Or if he/she needs to attend a certain number of interviews in order to continue receiving unemployment benefits.  But the point is that to attend a pointless interview just because you’re too embarrassed to cancel is to cede to one’s own social awkwardness.

If you've decided that you prefer the offer that you have from A, then please cancel the interview at school B.  School B can then offer the interview to another candidate who might actually want the job.  It is not impolite to cancel an interview in this situation.

Without the "details" of the offer on the table, I think that cancelling is really bad advice.

If the author from A isn't really an offer, then I agree that it would probably be unwise to cancel the interview with B.  That's really a different situation.

-1: No, this is a bad answer even if they did receive a written offer. Until the offer is literally signed by the candidate, sent in and confirmed, it is perfectly ethical to continue the search. Deals even fall through after an offer has been written by the University. That document isn't legally binding until it is signed. You are basically asking the candidate to go take a chance at going jobless, even if they did recieve the offer!


text:
Diploma Withheld
I will graduate from a university with a BA and two AA degrees at the end of April 2018. I intend to go to another university and get an accelerated BSN degree. Part of the requirement for admission into the accelerated BSN degree program is that I show that I graduated from a university with a BA and a cumulative GPA of at least 3.0, which I will certainly have. However, I will have an overdue balance of $8000 that I owe this university, which may or may not be paid by the time I intend to begin my accelerated BSN (June 2019, roughly a year from now).
Does anyone know if universities have a way of cross-checking with another university that I graduated if I can't supply them with a transcript or diploma because it's being withheld? I've emailed the university asking about it and, until they respond, I wanted to see if anyone here had some information or knowledge.

The leverage the university has to make sure you pay comes from refusing to formally authenticate your degree to third parties, not from quibbling over the difference between transcript, diploma, and some hypothetical cross-check.  So even if there is an alternative to the transcript, that alternative is also going to be on hold due to the outstanding debt.

Did you ask if an official transcript is required showing the degree having been awarded?  Did you ask your current school whether the official and/or unofficial transcripts will say that the degree was awarded?  Maybe your current school has some policy about this on their website?  Can you get them to document your degree by agreeing to a payment plan?

In the U.S., at least, your new university would insist on seeing a final, official transcript... but your old university would very likely not send one until all debts are paid to them.
If money is a serious issue here, you should talk to your "old" university and arrange a payment plan... and then they may be more willing to release your records. In the U.S., if you try to dodge this, it will eventually catch up with you, and you would most likely not be allowed to register at the new place (until they get official documents from the old place).

Hi, @paul garrett. I certainly intend to pay back what I owe; I’m not trying to avoid that. I’m simply trying to get a second degree that would enable me to get a certain job that would allow me to pay them back easily and quickly.

Then (thinking of the U.S. context) you need to negotiate directly, rather than delay talking to people. That is, even if you yourself plan without doubt to pay those debts, other people will not know this until you tell them, and a mere vague promise "eventual repayment" may not get you the transcript needed to register at the new place.


text:
Where can I look for post-doctoral positions in Europe?
I am about to submit my PhD thesis and I will be starting to apply for post-doctoral positions, and I was wondering if you can advise me on where to look all the opportunities available in Europe. I know how to find them in the UK

Euraxess is probably an option. There are also field-specific mailing lists, such as "CHI-JOBS" for Human-Computer Interaction where people all across the world (and Europe) advertise there.
Other than that, you might want to look at the job vacancies of specific universities that you are interested in.

I am doing my PhD in Health Sciences focusing on skin health. I would like to stay in this field but also considering my Biomedical background I am also considering relevant positions

@TheWanderer Thank you for your reply. I will look at the Universities that interest me.

If you are in math, then your question is a duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/970/19627 The answers to this question can be useful even if you're not in Math.

In the UK: jobs.ac.uk

More information is always helpful.  Most students who do postdocs find them in the following ways.
1) A recommendation to a company or university from the faculty of their current institution.
2) A recently graduated Ph.D. student who may know of a great fit for you at their new postdoc.
3) A place you've interned in the past that is open to bringing you on as a postdoc.
4) University mailing list for graduate students in your field.
5) Your academic network you build from all those years attending conferences and presenting your work.


text:
Why has there not been established any coherent measure of educative quality?
It seems nonsensical and backwards that university institutions can attract students by boasting with their brand value or exorbitant tuition fees rather than focusing on the actual educative quality their institution has to offer. Likewise, from the perspective of employers, it would be better to measure the actual education that potential employees have received, rather than have to hire supposedly smart Harvard graduates who then turn out to just be rich snobs.
Personally, I received my bachelor's from a "free" (tax-financed) university in Denmark, and then went on to study at LSE on a scholarship. If I had to pay for that master's degree, I'd be exponentially broke right now, and yet, I can honestly say that the education received in Denmark was more coherent and better structured, while LSE was more "read this, pass that exam, repeat", which is cool as well, but why are you demanding so much money then???
So my question is, why is there no established measure of the quality of the particular education offered at a particular institution? Is it because the powers that be have a vested interest in hiding the fact that high-tuition universitites with fancy latin mottos aren't actually more difficult to attend than average unis?

Simplest answer: it's hard to measure the sort of quality that matters.

There might be a good question underneath the rant...

You might like to read some about the field of education research.  Evaluating educational methods and outcomes in a consistent and meaningful way is extremely difficult, and AFAIK there is certainly no consensus on one single measure.

This is a highly meaningful and on-topic question. It shouldn't be closed. But I agree that it comes across as a rant and should be framed in a less opinionated way. Ideally the personal backstory should be replaced by OP's own preliminary research for the question.

Of possible interest is this book I read a few years ago --- Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa.

There have been numerous attempts to develop such “reductive” measures of educational quality, among others the US News and World Report rankings and the so-called Shanghai list.
The problem with these and other similar measures are that they reflect the specific aims and goals of the people who are creating the list. That is, there are no inherently unbiased and fully objective measures of educational quality and effectiveness.
Moreover, you can make the argument that even within a university, different departments can offer very different educational experiences as a result of class size, instructor quality, and other factors. So not only would you need an institutional ranking, you’d have to drill down to the department level, too, which is a very difficult endeavor.

In addition to the "consumer" rankings mentioned by aeismail, there have been scholarly efforts such as the National Survey of Student Engagement. U.S. accreditation practices offer self-evaluation, that are moving from being focused on inputs (library size, number of teachers, etc.) to outputs (schools figuring out how to show progress).
There are federal efforts that now provide baseline consumer reports, as a "college scorecard". And in fact, Harvard scores remarkably well as of 2018, with the average annual cost at $17,882 (due to generous need-based financial aid), a 6-year graduation rate of 98%, and the median earnings of graduates, 10 years out, of those who received federal financial aid, is $90,900.
The big conceptual difficulties in measurement are that students come in with all different preparation and goals (and there are not universal incoming measures about students--most colleges do not have very selective admissions criteria). Individual differences matter: some students would thrive at a small liberal arts college and learn poorly at a big state school, while other students might do the opposite.


text:
Is there a marketplace for research/ideas grants?
Non-academic here. Bachelors in Computer Science.
My question is, how does research happen? Is there some sort of directory/marketplace/dating-app where researchers and funders can meet each other ?
I'm envisioning something like:

Dr. Bob wants to study fruit flies.
Nestle wants to know how to keep fruit flies out of their factories.
Some tool helps Dr. Bob and Nestle meet up and do some research.

Is that how the research world works?

If only getting funding was as easy as swiping right on Tinder...

Pivot attempts to play this broker role. Having a well-edited list of available grants attracts scholars to the site, but getting the scholars to interact with each other for new collaborations is tricky. https://pivot.cos.com/

In the EU especially, you often need to partner with a dozen other EU countries to get the big money. I always wondered how that happened in practice, as it seems a monumental achievement to coordinate so many different people.
I know found one answer: my university has a team of people who do that for a job. They attend so-called "match-making" events where researchers pitch their ideas to other academics and industry partners.

@cactus_pardner "getting the scholars to interact with each other for new collaborations is tricky" Why? What it the motivation to not collaborate ?

The short answer is, collaboration is hard. :) I commented rather than answering because the broad part of the question is that most academics find funding from the same (often government, sometimes nonprofit) sources their professors did.


text:
What is a Formulated CV?
I am going to send my application to an organization and they have mentioned that the applicants should send us both tabular and formulated CVs.
Could you please walk me through this? What is a formulated CV? In what format should it be written? What information and in what order the information should be written?
I completely know the tabular format for resumes but I am new to this formulated CV.

See http://studyabroadscholarshipsuniversity.blogspot.com/2013/11/written-application-formulated-cv.html

As best as I can gather, a “formulated CV” contains the same basic information as a tabulated CV, but in narrative form. This allows you to explain anything that might look unusual in the standard tabulated form, and also gives the foundation an additional “standard” writing sample that can be more easily compared between candidates.

Thanks. Have you got any sample for such CVs?

No. I’ve never needed to write or collect them.

Thinking about your answer, I was wondering how I can explain and write about the "Publication" and "Workshop & conferences" parts in a formulated form! what would you do if you were me :)

When I write letters of recommendation, I lump the discussion of papers with the work that they did on the given project.