text:
Is a dictionary a "publication" on a CV?
I'm a scholar of Arabic, and one of the most impressive things on my CV is the fact that I worked on the one of the major Arabic dictionaries, produced by a major publisher. It's not necessarily relevant to my future employment (I'm not seeking lexicography jobs), but it establishes me as an expert in the language. But I am very unsure about where exactly this should go on my CV. I haven't found any guidelines or relevant advice online because (unsurprisingly) not that many people write dictionaries.
I've done it three different ways in the past, and I'm not sure which is best:

Listed in "Publications." This is nice and prominent, but I'm not sure if some might consider it illegitimate. My name is not on the cover (the editor's is); I'm listed inside as one of the Arabic–English "Revising editors." I was the lead revising editor, I worked on the project for longer than any other (I probably wrote or revised over half the entries) and trained the other reviewers, but this information is not reflected in the job title.
Listed in "Professional appointments". This way treat it as a job rather than as a publication, with the dates that I was working on it as dates of employment. (I was a contract worker and the publisher was paying me by the hour.) But it's not an academic appointment or directly related to the job I'm applying for, so I'm not sure if this would be considered a legitimate place for it.
Listed in "Other Arabic experience" or something like that towards the bottom of the resume. No one would question the legitimacy of this placement, but it seems unfortunate to bury something so prestigious.

Any thoughts on this?

What are you using this CV for?

@AzorAhai-him- The version I'm working on right now is for an administrative + teaching position in an Arabic department in a major university.

In my opinion, you should list your achievement in two places in your CV:

Under your "Work Experience" section: mention the period during which you worked as lead revising editor for the book, even if you didn't receive any payment/salary for it. Mention the title of the dictionary on which you worked on.

This dictionary should also be listed under "Publications", more specifically in a sub-section titled "Monographs (Co-edited works)", so as to distinguish it from any other books that you may have published as leading author/chief editor. In the bibliographic reference for the book, you may put the name of the chief editor(s), and right after that, write the names of the first 4 co-editors (in the same way as you would write the bibliographic reference for a book's translators), including your name, perhaps with an underline to emphasize your participation. Or, alternatively, you could just mention the chief editor, but right after the bibliographic reference, add a "Note:" mentioning that you were one of the main revising editors. If it is possible in any way to include page ranges for the parts/book sections that you worked in, please do so.


text:
How eligible is a BSc in applied math from a German FH (university of applied sciences) for a physics masters outside Germany?
I'd like to start with myself. I'm planning to transfer my studies to a German university. My objective is to become an astrophysicist. I want to have my Bachelor's in mathematics, Master's in physics (astrophysics or particle) and PhD in astrophysics.
I found a university of applied sciences (Fachhochschule) in Mittweida, Saxony. It offers a free, English course in applied mathematics, and the curriculum looks similar to that of any math course (although there are some differences depending on the universities, this is why I added the curriculum for you to review as well, I think you would know it better).
I am aware of the general differences between an FH and a Universtät in Germany, and that the recognition of a German FH degree depends on the university one is going to apply for a Master's degree. (e.g.: UCLA doesn't consider a FH degree as eligible, whereas the University of Edinburgh does)
What I wanted to know is, would an Applied Mathematics diploma create any obstacles in my way to obtaining a Master's degree in Physics?
Also, as mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, I am aware of the general difference; but to get more specific, how much would Applied Maths education at a FH differ from the same subject at a Universtät?

Applied math seems a long way from astrophysics. Why not a more direct route?

And why take a risk that a Fachhochschule diploma won't be accepted. A university seems a better choice.

There is no clear-cut answer to this question. It will depend very much on the master programme (and its curriculum) and the opinion of the programme director.
The best way is to just write to them and ask (with your documents attached). Note, that in many universities there is also a middle way between accepting and rejecting a candidate by asking the candidate to do some additional course work (e.g. in your case some physics basics).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do some professors state on their website to contact them prior to applying for admission to a PhD?
I've noticed some potential professors explicitly write to contact them prior to applying if interested in working with them. Why is that?

Are you referring to professors in a specific country?

This depends on country and maybe on field. It would be an unusual request in US, but possibly a requirement in Germany. Where are you applying?

Within the US it definitely depends on the field.

I am applying within the U.S. for a PhD in Geoscience/Atmospheric Science

Probably to save you and them time, because in the past they have received many applications that were not suitable, or they are only interested in students with certain very specific skills.
You can write them a short and concise message summarizing your experience, skills, and why you are thinking of applying - maybe 4 bullet points - and asking whether you should make a formal application or whether you could talk to them to discuss.

They may also not have funding this year, or are not looking to hire anyone, so better you find out now instead of in a few months after the application process that they cant hire you (depending whether you apply to the professor or to the school).
Maybe they are looking for a very particular candidate/skillset so they can advise whether you would even be worth considering.
Or they just want to see who can actually follow instructions. They can simplify their search by only considering those that showed some initiative and reached out to them.

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


text:
Does topic of Bachelor's dissertation matter when looking for a job?
I had to choose my dissertation topic, but due to some technical problems the wrong choice was selected. I wanted to know how much will it affect when I'm looking for a job. My major is accounting and finance and the topic that was chosen is much more theoretical i.e corporate social responsibility. What should be done?

What can be done? Do you have any options?

Well, if it the topic matters then I will try to change it, if not then I can let it be

Short answer: no, not really
Although it sometimes happens, it is quite rare for the topic of a dissertation to align with later professional work --- a fortiori when it is only a bachelor dissertation.  Most of the time the bachelor degree functions as a means of giving broad tertiary instruction in a field and then signalling baseline competence in that field.  Even for people who go on to do PhDs, it is common that their disseration topic will diverge from their later professional work.
There is perhaps a (very) slight advantage if you end up practicing in a field where your bachelor dissertation directly relates to your professional work.  It gives you a very minor headstart, but it is only minor, since you will get better and better at your job, and your musings as an undergraduate will later seem like they are not of high quality.  For a bachelor dissertation the usual expectation is that you are learning a topic area and able to say something sensible about it, but you are not usually expected to contribute publishable research.
As to what should be done in your particular case, you haven't set out your available options, but in any case, I really don't think it's a big deal that you are doing a topic outside your major.  It is an opportunity to learn about a topic that is not the focus of your major, which will give you a more-rounded education in the field.  So long as you have no strong aversion to the topic (e.g., extreme boredom of it) then I would suggest you accept this topic and get stuck in.

[This answer is from a North American perspective; it may apply less elsewhere. And it speaks in generalities.]
When industry is hiring at the Bachelor's level, they are generally looking for general academic success, an overall knowledge of a broad area (the "major"), and some evidence of ability for independent work (evidenced, for instance, by a major senior paper, project, or thesis.) They are fairly rarely looking for specialized knowledge in a small area that would have been developed specifically within the context of such a project or thesis. This is unlike at the Masters' and Ph.D. levels, after which specific expertise developed during one's thesis/dissertation work is much more likely to be directly relevant for the job one gets hired into.
With that in mind, if your major is in field A, you should not be penalized for having done a major project in subfield X while seeking a job in subfield Y.
That being said, as a former academic as well as someone who hired undergrads into industry, those hiring often look for consistent good academic performance as well as a sense of purpose, and a narrative to match.
So if I'm hiring you for Y, your thesis/project in X may be a missed opportunity to demonstrate interest and knowledge in Y. If you can demonstrate that elsewhere in your CV/application/interview, and if you have any sort of narrative why a project in X was interesting for you, I'll be unworried. If you fit the pattern of someone flighty who is interested in something different every week, and has no pattern of engagement with Y anywhere, then I will be worried.
In this instance, it seems X=CSR, and I'm not sure what subarea of accounting and finance Y is. I also find the wording "due to technical problems the wrong choice was selected" a bit unusual, so I hope you have a reason coming from your personal interest why you're writing on CSR, not just checking the wrong box somewhere!

There are too many variables to give a definite response. It could matter. It might not matter at all. I think that in most fields, at least, it is still rare for undergraduates to write a thesis. If that is so in your field, then anything you write is probably a plus.
It also depends on the type of job you want, as well as your future aspirations, e.g. graduate study.
But employers can be picky. If you write things that are seen as controversial, it could hurt. But, in general, thinking and writing are valued by many, if not most, employers. I doubt that too many employers will look at more than the title and the grade, though.
And, you also likely have an advisor who can give you advice on this.


text:
I am looking a journal named Moscow: Metallurgiya from 1971. Any Leads how I can find this journal?
I need this journal for my master thesis research as some of the relevant papers I am using have this journal as a reference. I need the edition from 1971. I have tried various Russian research sites but I could not find this. Any leads would be really appreciated.

Ask your librarian, helping with such problems is their job.

Please provide the full reference. I am not from this research area, but speak Russian. A quick hinted me, it's a publisher name (residing in Moscow), but not a journal.

A couple of references I've been able to find so far indicate that the journal going by this (Metallurgiya) name in Russia would be Acta Metallurgica 1 2. As Oleg has pointed out, you've probably confused the journal name with the publisher.

@Lodinn - was Acta translated into Russian?

Editing your question to include one or more of the papers you're looking for may be useful. Some Russian journals or articles were translated into English by the US government, for instance.

@JonCuster Probably, but it's almost certainly irrelevant: after digging a bit more, I'm nearly 100% sure Oleg is right. Take this example of bibliographic reference "Владимиров В.И. Физическая природа разрушения металлов. - М.: Металлургия, 1984.": it's a book titled "Физическая природа разрушения металлов" and published in 1984 by the Metallurgiya publisher. Or "Браун Н. - в кн.: Микропластичность: Пер. с англ. - М.: Металлургия, 1972." seems to be referring to the 1972 translation of Brown, N. (1968). Microplasticity. In Advan. Mater. Res. (Vol. 2, p. 45).

@DanielHatton not exactly, no. He's worked a number of years in metallurgy though.

@OlegLobachev I am looking for three articles. At least this is what is understood. I can share them here. Maybe this helps for the search. I really appreciate the help.

@OlegLobachev
Чекмарев А.П., Спиридонов Н.П., Куцыгин Я.Д. Аналитическое определение технологических коэффициентов влияния натяжения и различных возмущений на параметры непрерывной прокатки. Сб. Прокатное производство, ток ХХХУ. М.: Металлургия 1971. – 242 с.
Чекмарев А.П., Чернобривенко Ю.С., Куцыгин М.Д., Барвинов В.П. Расчет натяжения при непрерывной прокатке. Сб. Прокатное производство, ток ХХХУ. М.: Металлургия 1971. – 242 с.

@OlegLobachev
Чекмарев А.П., Куцов Ю.Г., Теряев В.А. Исследования давления металла на валки, крутящих моментов и расчет натяжения на непрерывном проволочном стане 250. Сб. Прокатное производство, ток ХХХУ. М.: Металлургия 1971. – 242 с.

Well, I have found this like this: https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01007068331, but no immediate PDFs. But it a series of a publisher, not a journal. Those are books.

@OlegLobachev Any idea where I can find these books?
I tried to find it at my university library, but they are not able to find it since it is in Russian

Try asking someone from the similar area in Russia...


text:
Question on Figures in PhD Dissertations
I am in the early stages of thinking how to structure and write my dissertation. In the course of doing so, I have been spending a lot of time reviewing unpublished dissertations via my universities library service.
One thing I have noticed is that many dissertations include intricate high quality figures but with no reference or sources cited in the figure caption. Should I assume the author somehow generated the figure themselves? Or is it more likely or common that the figure was taken from some other source (e.g. a textbook) and it wasn’t cited because that is not customary or necessary since the work was unpublished?
My gut feel is that any figure you did not create yourself should have a source or reference attached to it.

Why is it so unlikely that the authors created the figures themselves? A PhD thesis is meant to be a high quality piece of work, so it's worth investing time to make good figures.

If you present someone else's work as your own, that is plagiarism. That can mean taking words someone else wrote or figures someone else generated and putting them into your own document without attribution. Plagiarism is very much frowned upon in academia, and has no place in a PhD dissertation. You gut feeling is correct - if you didn't create it yourself, you should indicate who did, otherwise you are implicitly claiming that the work is yours.
That said, plagiarism certainly does exist in the wild. An author who does not cite a figure claims it as their own, although that doesn't rule out the possibility that they have plagiarized. I'd like to think that most academics avoid plagiarism and properly cite contributing works, however. Unless you track down the original source or note that the author is a serial plagiarist, all you can really do is assume that it is the author's original work.


text:
Reporting a study twice in the literature review in thesis
There is a paper that has used entropy feature in the beta band for subject classification and obtained a specific accuracy value. I am aware that there is no context here, but I put these minimal information just to explain my problem. Now I have two subsections under the "Literature Review" chapter in my thesis. In the first subsection, I am exploring frequency bands' effect on the accuracy and I reviewed the mentioned paper's results. In another subsection, I am dealing with the effect of complexity-based features on the accuracy, so again I need to review that paper again. I can't just split the feature and frequency band information in two and report them separately under the two sections because it harms the understanding of the review. What can I do here? Repeating the review, although with different emphasis, seems redundant. And cross-referencing inconveniently interrupts the flow of the text for the reader.

Repeating yourself for the sake of clarity is not redundancy. Redundancy is repeating yourself needlessly.
The scenario that you have described seems to me to be a very well justified case for reviewing the same paper twice in two different sections. In one section, you should emphasize frequency bands, and in the other section emphasize complexity-based features. And it is quite appropriate to briefly refer back to the paper so that the attentive reviewer knows that you are quite aware that you are referring to the same paper twice, albeit from slightly different angles. So, for example, you could begin the second time with something like, "Authors (20xx), whom we discussed in our section on frequency bands, also analyzed complexity-based features and they found that …".

Um, but there is no "also". In the first subsection I reported like "authors used entropy feature in 5 frequency bands where beta band gave the best result of 98% accuracy". Now in the next subsection I may write "authors used entropy features in beta band and obtained 98% accuracy". So, these two are not redundant, are they?

I would think that you should comment somewhat more than that on each article in a literature review that is long enough to have multiple sections. In any case, if that is all there is, then the second time, you could say something like, "As mentioned earlier, Authors used entropy features in beta band and obtained 98% accuracy". Again, I assume that the repetition is necessary, as you said in your question. If it is necessary, then it is not redundant.

Well I didn't make a comprehensive review (only reported the relevant results), therefore they are short. In that case, I will repeat and cross-reference at the same time. Thanks.


text:
Mentioning Masters GPA vs Undergrad GPA in SOP?
I'm applying for Astronomy/Astrophysics PhD programs in the U.S.
My undergrad GPA at UT Austin is 3.1/4, but my Master's GPA with all graduate-level classes is 3.85/4 so far, which is a very big difference.
Should I mention this in my SOP?

No.  They already have your transcripts. The purpose of your SOP is to answer the question, "What is your purpose is wanting to pursue a PhD?"  It should be future-oriented, explaining your goals and what they should expect you'll do if they admit you.  Your SOP is not the place to explain how you've dreamed of this since you first looked through a telescope as a child, nor is it the place to explain how much better you really are than your grades might suggest.  Stay on point.  Tell them about your plans for the future.


text:
Postdoc in the UK, still in probation period. Can I still ask for a salary increase?
Basically the title says everything. I came from a very low ranked university outside the UK (Africa). During my PHD, I worked as a part time lecturer at another University in my home country for 1 year and I have a lot of experience in supervising and a very good research background with good publication output (7 papers in moderate journals).
I say this first because it had a lot with how I handled my salary negotiation: 1) I received a feedback that I need to start on higher quality journals (at least Impact factor 4 or more). The best journal I published in was IF 1.1 and that phd students in that new university could easily get a journal with IF 3. This clearly hit my self confidence and I know it does because I am a bit nervous although EVERYONE in my new team are really really satisfied with my current progress and results. 2) The second issue is that I read everyone that postdoc salary are simply not negotiable. A recently graduated PHD will start at the lowest scale point.
So during the meeting with HR officer, she basically asked if I am working right now and I simply replied "no" and she said "Ok, you don't have experience so you will start with this" and quickly moved to other things. I was nervous to bring the issue so I just went a long with it. Now, 5 months later in my postdoc, I know that my PI is really good at bringing money and he has a lot of project working on. So money is not an issue. I recently learned that the project I'm working on had a higher budget allocated to the researcher to be recruited (and that's me) but I started at the lowest pay scale. I really think I deserve more but I really don't know if I should bring this or maybe I missed my chance.
I still have one probation meeting where I will talk to the PI. What do you think? Is this too late? If you think I could try, how can I approach the situation with the PI? At first, I knew that I can't justify why I need more because I come from another country, so I decided to wait and let them see how I work to bring it.

See https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111737/uk-postdoc-is-salary-negotiation-even-possible?rq=1 for the UK.

Thank you, but my question is about asking for a salary increase during my probation period rather than a salary negotiation after an offer is made.

"postdoc salary are simply not negotiable"  This is not true, but you must negotiate with knowledge of the local system.

Almost all postdocs in the UK will get a 1 pay scale point increase each year more or less automatically. Most universities have a mechanism for awarding a two point increase in exceptional circumstances, where the individual has made an outstanding contribution (usually awarded for a specific achievement, rather than just doing well). Its almost unheard of for anyone to increase by more than 2 points at a time.
The other alternative is a promotion. If you believe that your duties don't match your job description, such can apply for a promotion from one grade to another (ie from grade 6 to grade 7, where grade 6 will be called something like research assistant and 7 something like research associate). Again, there is generally a formal process for this.
In both cases, there is almost certainly a specific time in the year when these processes happen. For example, for us promotion cases are submitted in August, and then go through various panel meetings in October (departmental), November (faculty/school) and December (university). Its unlikely an increase will be possible outside that time scale unless there was something written into your probation agreement, but it can't hurt to ask.

I agree with everything in Ian's answer and would like to add a couple of things.
Reading your question, I notice you haven't actually given a reason for why you think you deserve a salary increase:

(Note that "I could use the money" is not a good reason; we all could.)
(Also "Supervisor is good at bringing in money and has a lot of funded projects" is not a good reason; unless you are planning to reapply and switch to a position in one of the other projects)
You say that your postdoc is progressing well; again this is the expected turn of events, and the reason you were offered the position following the interview (if they expected you would not do well in the position, you would not have been offered it).
Your past working experience in Academia is "1 year as a part-time lecturer". So less than 1 full-time year; and also it seems in teaching rather than research, so not directly relevant to a research-oriented postdoc position.

You might have better reasons than the ones you outlined in the question which we don't know about. That said, I would condition Ian's suggestion that "It can't hurt to ask" on having solid, specific reasons why you deserve a bump up the pay spine. These usually have to do with demonstrating research independence. Typically this refers to time spent in research positions, but the duties and responsibilities you hold can serve this purpose too.
I would also suggest you consider a couple of other points:

Climbing up the pay spine and skipping over a point on the pay scale is typically much easier when finishing up a contract and switching to your next position, either at the same University or a different one.
If your supervisor indeed has a generous budget for this and other projects (and maybe a small discretionary budget of his own if he is so good at bringing in money), consider other ways you could benefit from his budget. Consider whether your research and professional development would benefit from e.g. new equipment, books, or attending events (still virtual for the most part but I live in hope that we will one day be encouraged to meet people again).

I agree with both answers. The only reason I mentioned those points is to say that I work hard, but like you said working hard is not enough. I need to demonstrate specifically why I need an increase and using only arguments that relate to research oriented postdocs.


text:
Addressing a colleague's lack of contribution/input
I am a recently hired postdoc. I was tasked to prepare two documents for my first project. The project was for a company where we needed to provide results when it's over. I was working well on my own and I had many meetings with my PI and was always giving me suggestions. In one meeting, the PI told me that he will bring in a senior postdoc to review and edit the documents. He told me that I can work with him on this and ask him to prepare sections for the documents. He said he is bringing him over not because I was doing a bad job but the other postdoc has more experience than me in one stuff and he could help.
I have no issue with teamwork, I also understood what PI was  playing it safe and probably wanted to avoid this scenario: I will be work on the documents for the entire period and when the deadlines are over, he will find out that I did a bad job and there isn't too much catch up.
The issue is that when I met the senior postdoc and explained the project and send him documents, I told him that I need help with section X and Z. He said he will try because he is working on other projects as well. For the first document, he only left comments to re arrange some sections and told me that the first document is good and already had all the content. I was happy because I needed an external validity and I was nervous because this was my first project. I also gave him the benefit of the doubt because the first document wat 97% over. However, he wrote in the document that he prepared the document with me. As far as I can see, he only reviewed the document and left me some comments, he said he can't write sections because he is busy and I have a long email from the PI saying that he should edit the documents as appropriate.
I didn't want to raise the issue because it was simply my first encounter with everyone. I don't want to create a bad impression when it comes to teamwork. For the second document, I wasn't making a lot of progress and I had so many things to do as well. I emailed him that I need help with some sections I can't work on the document this week because I have a presentation. 10 Days later and the document is still the same. I know he is planning to leave me comments on the side that will make me do more work and actually "help me". I don't know how to react to this whole situation. Should I talk to my colleague directly? or should I tell the PI first? Or I should just let it go.

I don't think you read my question. The PI ASKED THE SENIOR POSTDOC TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENT. He was assigned a couple of tasks in a written email. HE TOLD ME TO GIVE HIM SECTIONS TO PREPARE, TWICE IN FACT. Which means the PI is more aware of his current schedule. What he did instead is left 2 COMMENTS AND WROTE HIS NAME.

@tensors_are_4_engineers and what's wrong with me focusing on my work and the tasks assigned to me vs. to my colleague? Where did I say that my work is more important? I am literally following instructions that were given to me. And the instructions were literally "to fill the hole I left because I don't have much experience". Even in 5 years, I would NEVER slap my name in a document I barely even touched. Especially that documents has specific places for "PREPARED BY and EREVIEWED BY"

I'll guess that you have already received all the "help" you are likely to get. The PI wanted the other person to "review and edit". You also suggest that the PI is not unhappy with your work.
I suggest you take it for what it is and depend on your own skill and experience to prepare the best documents you can. The PI will probably want to comment before releasing them.
The other post-doc certainly has the right to focus on their own work and may not have any issues with yours sufficient to object to it.
I'd think that, except for self confidence, you are in a pretty good place.

The document was submitted and they were impressed. I know I am a little nervous, not as I was before when I started though. I was right not to make any comments at the beginning because I do understand that he might be busy. I was a bit pressed last week and I asked for his help and he agreed. But I was a bit annoyed that I was waiting for his "help" for 10 days and didn't do anything and I know it will be like the first document again. It's fine. It is what it is. Thank you for your answer!


text:
Program committee count as scientific achievements?
In general, should pc members/chairs count as scientific achievements?

What's a program committee? Please consider defining and providing context for people not from your subfield. Also, where are you counting your scientific achievements at? your cv? a webpage?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

If you are on the program (or other) committee for a conference, especially a major conference in your field, then an item in the CV under a heading like "Service to the Academic Community" is appropriate.
But it isn't a "scientific achievement" in any sense since it is more of a managerial function than anything.


text:
Regarding the application process for PhDs to universities in Norway, Switzerland and Ireland?
I will be completing my master’s degree in international trade this year (I’m currently studying in a developing country). For my PhD, I’m planning to apply to universities in Norway, Ireland, Switzerland.. next year, as I’ve heard that PhD students in these countries receive a salary similar to a regular job.
I was wondering if anyone has experience with the application process in these countries. How competitive is it to get accepted into a PhD program? Any advice or insights would be greatly appreciated, especially since I haven’t decided on a specific thesis topic yet.

Actually, answers for the three named counties are missing at the canonical question, but should be provided there, not here.

I don't understand why the question was closed, in this case people who have prior experience won't see my question and I won't be able to get the answers I need. If the countries are missing at the canonical question. It's one more reason to NOT close this question. Honestly, you need to revise this policy

If the answers for those countries are provided in the canonical question it will benefit everyone, including yourself. There is no reason to fragment the answers. Watch for changes there. And if anyone has knowledge about how the process works there, or in other countries not yet included, I encourage you to add an answer there, keeping the same general format as the other answers.

Let me note, however, that if funding is your main concern, that many countries other than these three provide funding for doctoral students. Germany is similar to what you describe (similar to salary). The US funds through teaching assistantships. So, don't restrict to these three for just funding concerns alone.

@Lucylucy Actually, that's why we "close" questions, rather than delete them. Now, if someone is watching for questions about Norway, they'll see your question, and then be appropriately directed to the canonical Q. Now, you won't be notified, but it would be polite for such an answerer to maybe let you know here.

I think we would be far more likely to get an answer for the canonical question if we left this open until there was an answer. We can always copy the answer to the canonical question later, if we get one. (That said, three countries is too many, recommend having one country per post).


text:
Why do researchers accept the pay-to-publish, pay-to-read model, despite receiving no direct compensation?
I’ve been thinking about the publishing model in academia (particularly in physics, but this may apply more broadly). Researchers invest a significant amount of time and effort in conducting studies, writing up results, and submitting to journals. Yet, we often need to pay article processing charges (APCs) or page fees to have our work published. At the same time, these journals charge subscription or pay-per-view fees to readers who want access.
Even among open-access journals, authors typically pay fees up front, and—aside from the occasional honorarium or special grant—they still don’t receive direct payment from the publisher. It’s true that publishing in top journals can lead to indirect benefits—such as better job prospects, grant funding, or recognition from peers—but this isn’t the same as directly getting paid for the research articles themselves.
My questions are:

Why has this pay-to-publish, pay-to-read system endured so long, even though many researchers voice frustration about it?

Is it considered acceptable or even normal that authors are not paid for creating (and reviewing) content that publishers then sell?

How do indirect benefits (like career advancement, prizes, or grant opportunities) factor into justifying this system’s integrity?

Are there realistic, large-scale alternatives (e.g., “diamond open access,” society-funded journals, etc.) that can break this cycle without simply shifting the financial burden from reader to author?

I understand that producing a quality journal involves peer review, editorial services, and overhead costs, but it still feels counterintuitive to pay to publish my own work while also seeing readers pay to access it. I’d love to hear how others in academia reconcile these concerns or if there are viable reform movements that address them.

What would a sustainable alternative look like to you?

@Aruralreader Currently I neither have alternative, clear, sustainable solution... However, I still have feeling that contemporary system is somewhat unfair.

Interesting. You might clarify what somewhat unfair means to you. Anyway, great changes can come from wrestling with challenges and, if you do so, maybe something that’ll benefit us all will pop out. Good luck!

Physics is actually one of the fields in which publishing is often free.  Certainly it is in many of the best journals, including traditional The Physical Review family.  On the other hand, many lower quality open access journals have no other source of revenue than charging authors.

This question is similar to: Why is it acceptable that publishers sell papers they didn’t pay for?. If you believe it’s different, please [edit] the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

Also see https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109003/why-are-academics-not-paid-royalties-on-published-research-papers-in-ieee-acm-e

Like Democracy, it is the worst system except for all the other ones we’ve tried. Apologies to Churchill.

People pay to publish in journals because publication in those journals gives them "credit": for jobs, for promotions, for grants, for prestige.
No one can unilaterally choose not to do this because they can't choose how others will judge them.
The pay-to-publish rather than pay-to-read model has largely arisen from organized pressure by funding agencies that mandate that work they fund must be broadly available; that precludes publishers making money on subscriptions, so they changed the business model to charge authors instead (very much simplifying this history and the combinations of ways that publishers make money, of course). So yes, if there is an organized push to change things they can change, but the end result of a change isn't necessarily what advocates intend or predict.

I completely agree that .... in practice. Career incentives (like credit for jobs, promotions, grants) lock researchers into this pay-to-publish model. However, my bigger question is: why do so few people actively challenge it? Even if it’s entrenched and reinforced by prestige, is there really no room—or will—for large-scale dissatisfaction that questions the underlying fairness or legitimacy of the system?

I would expect that those who are inconvenienced by the system of pay-to-publish and those who have the skills and resources to produce an alternative model are largely non-overlapping groups of people.

@K.R.Park I'd agree with Root's explanation. People are also just busy with a lot of other stuff - they don't have time to fix stuff they didn't personally break.

@K.R.Park publish or perish actively selects for those who invest in the current system, pushing anyone who would challenge it out of academia and any position to do anything about it.

@user1937198 I’m not sure this is true.  With notable exceptions most tenured researchers do not live by “publish or perish”.  They are just productive without falling into the “extreme publisher” category.

@ZeroTheHero but they got tenure by publishing. Therefore selecting those who have tenure tend not to be ones who would have made a fuss. Also, they still need to collaborate, and there collaborators need the high rank publications. It's not just numbers of publications, it's the need to have high impact journals.  And those journals are in the current system, and those without tenure need to be published in them.

@user1937198 all of this can indeed be taken to the extreme in some cases but your description is exagerated for most.  Very few people can deal with high publishing pressures for an extended period of time, and for most researchers there are slow times.  Not every researcher has a group of 40 slaves working around the clock…

@ZeroTheHero I don't understand what your argument is: what are you saying is not true? How does that apply to the subject matter here?

@BryanKrause I don’t believe that “publish or perish” is generally as bad as it is made out to be, and I certainly don’t believe it selects for those who invest in the current system to the detriment of some who would challenge the status quo. In fact I have come to believe the current system works reasonably well, although I do recognize there is a minority of very high profile greedy profiteer publishers who have figure out how to milk the system.

Basically there is a cost to producing a published paper.  In some cases the cost is excessive and vastly inflated, but I don’t see self-selection nor do I believe that everyone functions in the “publish or perish” model.  Certainly true some times, but not most of the time.

@ZeroTheHero how many postdocs will willingly publish in a lower impact journal if a higher impact journal is possible? That's where I see the main pressure point being. Postdocs don't have the flexibility to be picky about journals if they want to have a cv that keeps them in academia. It's not volume or slow periods. It's willingly self sacrificing you cv by avoiding high impact journals. That's how publish or perish weans out postdocs, who otherwise would be the group most likely to push for change.

Because in practice, no other model works better.  It takes time, money and resources to publish an article.  I don’t mean writing it or doing the research, but you need people to maintain websites, update softwares, deal with backups, and do all these other littles things that academics don’t like doing once the paper is submitted.  You need copy editors, programmers etc so papers use a single coherent format, to run spellcheckers and grammar checks, to check that references are consistent, figures are produced correctly, and the list goes on.   (See here for some insights into staffing a physics journal.)
Someone has to invest the time, and that’s money.   Volunteering only lasts so long : editors, associate editors etc eventually quit, so unless you have a permanent staff of specialists, the thing will unravel quickly once volunteers (legitimately) want to move on.
Would you prefer that a university researcher devote 5 hours to do all the prep work for publication, or is it more efficient to have a professional staffer from the journal do this?  You can go down the pecking order if you want and claim that a grad student or a university admin assistant could do this, but there is time involved and so again, would you pay your own employee to do this (most academics hate doing this!) or let a specialist from the journal do it?
Alternatives have been tried.  The journal Quantum referred to in the link above started as open-access with no APC and covered their costs through donations, but they now ask for APC although they are lenient if you cannot afford to pay.  If these guys charge APCs,  it’s because they need to.
So, the underlying question here is: how much and who should pay for access?  Certainly some publishers have very very fat margins and I will not deny that some publishers charge much too much for subscription or APCs.  (See Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?, published in The Guardian in June 2017.). However many journal are run on a shoestring and would not survive without the volunteer help of editors and the income from subscription or APCs to pay the support staff.
As to why, well… it’s fairly rewarding,  Nevermind the prestige (real or imagined) that comes from this, it’s a way of giving back to the community.  Some people are asked to referee my submissions so one way I can contribute back is participating in the submission process at the editorial level.
Why do I do it for free?  Well… I don’t. I’m not like Stephen King or Tom Clancy: if they produce no novel they can’t buy bread. I on the other hand am paid to produce science - research is part of my job description, along with teaching, supervision and committee work.

Not too mention, that five hours is for someone who knows what they’re doing. Someone who doesn’t know whatever typesetting system the journal uses might take weeks to learn it. Waste of time

@AzorAhai-him- Yeah 5hrs is a minimum, but even this much is not an efficient way of allocating resources.  Too many people think publishing is just a plug-and-play process in large part because some cadre of professionals make it (almost) seamless for the authors.

Totally agreed. Just adding information. I think a lot of that sentiment seems to come from LaTeX-y field where authors are expected to do their own typesetting.

Hmmm... if I've spent 6 months writing a paper,  and the reviewers have each spent 8 hours reviewing each of 3 revisions,  then 5 hours seems pretty marginal as a % of the total time invested in the paper.  Also,  its not just an exceptional minority charging large amounts.  (In my field at least) the average APC is $3000-$4000, which would seem about right for 50 hours of work,  not 5

I also think you under estimate the effect of publish our perish. While tenured profs are some what immune,  the majority of systems don't have tenure,  and even in those that do,  the majority of researchers don't have tenure. If your are on a 2-3 year postdoc contract,  then you better be getting a paper every 2-3 years or you definitely will "perish" (professionally). Ditto those on "soft money positions". Finally publish our perish is literally baked into the system in some places.  Eg here those without 1 major output every 2/3 years are subject to the initiation of disciplinary action.

@IanSudbery … and despite this the journal probably made some changes.  You still need someone to update the manuscript tracking software, actually keep trance of all this, update the website etc.  Yes I do think some fees are excessive and honestly it’s a barrier for researchers with no funds but it’s not 0 work to run a journal.

my experience was that admin assistants and staff were shared between several journals to rationalize.  Nobody got reach running these journals although I am aware that some journals have healthy margins.

Finally, the UK and the US have strange systems.  Certainly in the UK there is quasi-tenure (you can be “reorganized away”) but with those exceptions most “Western” systems do not necessarily live by publish or perish.  Instructors are valuable (?) to the institution because of their teaching and mentoring and research is rarely 100% of the job description.  Agreed that no output is bad but you can have only a “reasonable” publication record and not perish.

The answer is very simple.
Do you have a better idea?
If you have a better idea, feel free to write it in the comments and if I think it's workable I'll see if I can set something up.


text:
What are unique tips for giving a 15-minute defense presentation about your research study?
Tomorrow will be my final defense presentation. How do I make sure that everything will go as planned? Any unique tips from any aspects of the presentation that you can give me?
Thanks in advance!

Which country are you in? Which field of study?

@JW, Philippines. I am still a Grade 12 Senior High School student conducting quantitative research about Vaccine Hesitancy.

@AidreCabrera this website is specifically for academia, so university/college education. High school questions are outside of the scope (Read here about why this is the case) of this community.  Did you perform your research in an academic institution or is this otherwise related to university education?

Who is the audience, and will you be questioned afterwards?

@Buffy, only three defense panelists. Yes, I will be questioned afterward.

Unique tips? There is much online helpful advice on this so it may be hard to find a unique tip.
Nevertheless, my personal reaction to your question is that “defense”, although a conventional academic concept, starts a presenter off on the wrong foot. It conditions us to think of the presentation as somehow adversarial, which it need not be.
The more mature approach is to assume that the audience is first interested in what you have to say, second sympathetic to your task, and third has the job of commending the good and advising about the less good.
Of course there are a few irritating people who may be over-critical, or who wish to exhibit their own cleverness or dominance. They are not central to a positive approach and should merely be handled courteously and objectively, standing your ground where you feel yourself to be correct, and giving way with thanks where they are correct.


text:
How to repond to reviewer comment that findings in existing literature contrast my findings?
I recently received comments from the reviewers on my research paper. In my paper I look at the impact of X on Y and find that X negatively affects Y. One reviewer has commented that while my findings are interesting, they are uncomfortable with the idea because of existing literature that has found Y negatively affects X. In my literature review I have briefly discussed the literature on Y->X before moving on to the literature on X->Y (which is my focus). However, I am unable to understand how to respond to their comment that they are uncomfortable with my finding as a strand of literature has discussed a contrasting position.
Would appreciate any help. I'm in Economics, if it matters.

What do you think is the reason the other paper found the opposite effect? Is your effect Rock solid in the sense you want to put out your head to challenge current wisdom, or is it just 'meh, a little'.

Are you using a correlation to infer causation?

@Daniel Hatton yes you are right. there is a feedback loop and some studies have looked at similar feedback loops but in different contexts.

The general rule when you get (somewhat negative) comments from a reviewer is to examine them carefully to see if they can help you clarify what you have to say. They may have found an error or infelicity in your paper that you want discovered now, not after publication. No one likes to be criticized - put those feelings aside and think about whether the comments are correct.
In this case perhaps you should expand your discussion to make clear why the effect of Y on X does not matter in your argument.
If you don't think there is a need for that, just tell the editor why when you respond with corrections.
The essential point is to think of all comments as constructive criticism.

this makes sense. I will try to elaborate on what you suggested

The comment isn't necessarily negative. If two variables are linked in some way then treating either as the independent variable is likely to show correlation with the other.
But the question arises as to why you chose the one, rather than the other. It might be worth a few paragraphs added to your paper to make that clear and justify it.
And it might be worth a short addition to point to the other paper(s) and briefly explain the situation.
So, it might be worth treating it as an opportunity rather than a problem.

Thanks for your suggestion. I would have to dig deep into why i chose this particular aspect


text:
What's a good tool to help students perform peer review as a graded assignment?
I am teaching an academic writing course for grad students and part of the course content involves peer review activities on one another's writings. These peer reviews will receive a letter grade.
Do you know of any tools/templates/techniques to facilitate this both from the students perspective (e.g. a form or even a Perusall-like tool) and the instructor's perspective (grading peer reviews will be very time consuming unless there's some standardization).
Tips or creative ideas are welcome!

Which particular problem do you try to solve with a tool? Students need clear guidance about what they should comment on in their reviews, that is, criteria or dimensions of assessment. Once you have those criteria clear, you can build a template in which each criterion becomes a section.

For peer-review purposes, I've been content with the Workshop activity in Moodle.
You can set up peer review template forms, change the "blindness" (anonymity) of the process, modify the number of peer reviews per submission, and you have a single platform which allows the grading of both the paper submission and the peer review reports.

We had very good experiences using Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/Home for "writing across the curriculum" for undergraduates.  I think it should fit your purposes as well.
Some discussion https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1062843.pdf

If you want the students to learn to peer review like a professional scientist, they need to understand that article peer reviewing does not come with a template.  Each paper is different and each peer review should be adjusted to match.  That said, here's a
checklist that students could use.
Here is a similar resource for mathematics.
If you want students to learn to peer review grant applications, your funding agency probably does provide a template.


text:
PhD Application: What are the pros/cons of agreeing to be considered for a financial award (TA, GRA or Fellowship) with admission?
I'm applying to PhD programs in the U.S. (Computer Science) and several applications have the question: "Do you wish to be considered for a financial award (TA, GRA or Fellowship) with admission?" with a checkbox, a yes/no dropdown, or checkboxes to select which one I would like to be considered for.

Will picking "yes" reduce my chances of entry?
I already have a fellowship from the NSF (it's not the NSF-GRFP, but it's the exact same terms/money as the NSF-GRFP).  Am I allowed to pick "yes"?  Is it normal for someone like me to pick "yes", or is it more normal to pick "no"?

First, note that nearly all US doctoral students are funded as TAs with smaller numbers for the others. Very few bring external money. Research universities have a huge need for TAs to help with the undergraduate program which is part of their overall mission.
Second, every US university is different and even within a given university policies and procedures may differ by department, so an absolute answer is impossible.
But, I doubt that it would have any effect on admission, unless there are some special circumstances.
The question is (most places) primarily a way for the administration to get a handle on the funding requirements for the coming year. They would like to know whether you would be likely to accept an unfunded offer or would reject it out of hand. Checking yes is unlikely to decrease your chances, provided you are otherwise qualified.
I don't know the details of your fellowship but if it won't cover you for the entire time of your study then you will probably need funding, though not at this time. If it covers a couple of years then you can probably work out a TA (or other) later. Technically, however, you don't need the TA as a condition for acceptance so it might be a mistake to check the "yes" box.
Checking no, on the other hand, might possibly increase your chances by a bit, but only if you would be admitted anyway and only if the university needed to limit admissions for financial reasons. It won't push you ahead of any other candidate, though.
Note that the department probably has a limit (not too hard) on the number of "seats" available, and another limit (harder) on the funds available. All bets are off as those limits approach. At the margin, someone might think "We can't fund anyone else, but we have a few open seats. Is there anyone here we should still admit without funding." That can happen, but I doubt (weasel word) that it is very common.
When I was a grad student (days of King Arthur) we had about 150 doctoral students in the department but only a couple of them weren't TAs or RAs. Almost all TAs.

I don't much like giving answers with a lot of weasel words (likely, doubt, probably...) but things vary. Sometimes all you can get are things to think about since there are so many options and variables in US university education.


text:
How to make the best out of my Applied Math degree?
I'm currently a second-year student taking a Math Degree. The reason I say Applied Math in the title is because I've started to see that, while I like studying Pure Math (I'm enjoying my proof based courses alot), I love to see the Math I learn be used in real life problems. So I'll most likely end up choosing electives that are "more applied" than others.
But I'm facing a very frustrating problem.
When I first enrolled in Math, I used to think that I like Math "for the sake of doing Math". However, I decided to take more Physics courses (Intro to Mechanics, Intro to E&M, a Lab course, and this semester I'm taking Modern Physics and Waves). I've also started doing lots of outside reading on Physics, and realized I'm ALSO interested in Physics.
But then I realized I'm actually not JUST interested in Physics, but really anything that has lots to do with Math and Science (mainly the more Math oriented fields). I've started reading through other topics from other fields and indeed I started to feel an urge to study them too! These topics come from a range of subjects such as Engineering and Statistics, and even some topics that aren't very Math-heavy!
I feel quite overwhelmed. I still love studying Math in all its forms, but I truly feel like I want to dive deeper into other fields. I want to learn alot.
I would like to continue into Grad school and do research. Unfortunately, I believe I must choose a certain field to concentrate on. The thing is, I know I want to study Math as a main and use that math knowledge in science and engineering.
But I feel lost. Where do I start? What exactly do I do? I need to apply to Graduate schools eventually and it won't be good to have no clear path. It doesn't seem like I want to learn one thing, but rather numerous things.
It's best to start preparing from now for Graduate schools. But what exactly do I prepare for (like, what program do I apply to)? How do I approach this problem? What advice would you give me?
Thank you in advance, any reply is greatly appreciated.

(Personal experience inbound in 3... 2... 1...)
One thing you have to learn is that there are way more interesting things in the world than you could possibly pursue. To me, this was most likely the hardest thing to learn to live with. There are many layers to memento mori; some things you never have found time for will haunt you, but decisions about your priorities you must make - constantly.
A typical academic is, indeed, curious, and would gladly entertain themselves thinking about topics not relevant to their own research. But, a slim fraction of geniuses - such as Hilbert, Poincaré, Feynman or Landau - aside, very few make significant contributions to science by dabbling in lots of topics professionally. On a bright side, no one is robbing you of the ability to engage in projects from different fields or having hobbies. In fact, Applied Math used to be THE place to be to work on all kinds of problems, from physics and biology to social science, until ML (arguably) took that crown in recent years. So you seem to be in a good spot!
If you are anything like me, you would also struggle with being excited by how much progress is there to be made by just thinking about it a bit and how little progress there will be in the following months doing grunt work. Alas, this is also a part of the life in academia: it is a popular adage on academia.SE that the ideas are cheap. Most of us have more ideas than time/resources to implement them.
By Robert Root-Bernstein, I would be a dilettante, but a lucky one: people with deep specialist knowledge still find my ideas and skills useful. So I still feel fulfillment, albeit the inability to stay on a more typical career track surely makes things difficult.
So, then, I believe you are facing two major options: either commit to a field and keep the rest of your interests as hobbies or commit to a skillset and try to engage them professionally. Interdisciplinary research and lack of specialization seem to become more widely accepted, so focusing on developing a skillset might be a good idea.
Finally, the question about the grad school is hard to attack. I went for something I was already working on for a couple of years but "just go for whatever" is hardly an answer given in good conscience. Grad school is not a trifle time investment, but it does not lock you out of other options for the rest of your career. Try to think of it accordingly: will it be a good time investment? What skills and connections will you likely acquire there? Be careful with something too universal though - soon as you become an expert in say fluid dynamics, military guys will want you to work for them and make your life a notch more miserable. Or not. Only you can tell.
It will be likely be hard to switch between topics rapidly, primarily because of how important networking is. But you will be able to steer your research direction for sure. If you can act upon sidetracking ideas and connect them to the right people, it would make for a great career in science. If not... Well, ideas are cheap.
Best of luck.


text:
Transitioning from Math to Physics
I'm currently a 3rd year Math student and currently have one more year till I finish. Currently loving the degree, no problems.
But I'm really running into a giant problem. I fell in love with Physics recently after trying out Upper level Classical mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and after much reading I realized it's indeed the field I'm more interested it.
Keep in mind I like pure math, I'm doing well in my courses and enjoying every second. But it's more so that I like learning math, than actually discovering/inventing new mathematical theorems pertaining solely to pure mathematical systems. But lately I've been enjoying Physics so much more, and strongly feel like it's where I belong.
My math knowledge: I took Real Analysis 1&2, Topology, Compelx Analysis, Measure Theory, Abstract Algebra 1&2, Number theory, Linear Algebra 1&2, Set Theory and lots of other Applied Math courses such as Math Methods, Numerical Analysis 1&2, ODEs and PDEs, and Stats/Prob courses like Probability Theory, Mathematical Statistics, and Statistical Methods. I enjoy all these courses, but I'd feel much more fulfilled if I can apply this knowledge to solve problems in physics than just doing math for the sake of math.
Now unfortunately I cant do a double major (not a thing in my country). Is there a way I'd get accepted to theoretical physics PhD programs by finishing my math degree, studying the necessary physics alone (I'm on good terms with both the Math and Physics faculty so they could certainly vouch for my knowledge, if I manage to reach an appropriate level and prove myself to them) and maybe do the Physics GRE? How much would it affect me if I have no Physics resesech experience (I do have Math research experience with my professors)?
Or should I do a physics undergrad and do research with my professors?
Thank you very much for any advice, and sorry if I said something that might seem bad, offensive or ignorant.
P.S: I should mention now that a masters in Physics in my country is impossible unless I do a bachelors all over again (abroad is a different story).

Have you considered a PhD in mathematical physics?  Such programs exist at some universities.

First and foremost, there exist physics-related projects on which you can work while being a PhD student at a mathematics department. Here is one example out of many.
Also, both in the US and Europe, with you Math degree you can apply to many PhD programmes in physics or engineering. (If admitted, you will have to take some remedial courses.) Moreover, in some areas, your mathematical background will sooner be an advantage. One example of the kind is furnished by celestial and orbital mechanics or control engineering. Another is QFT, superstrings, quantum gravity (and gravitational physics in general).

This will probably have a different answer in a different country, but for doctoral study in the US, you would probably be considered for admission. It is common here to change fields on start of a doctoral program. There will be advanced physics courses to take, however.
The competition is fierce, however, and you will be competing with others who have had more physics.
But another degree, or changing as an undergrad, isn't required. Letters of recommendation from people who can honestly predict success in physics would be very important.


text:
How do I tell if a conference is legitimate?
My paper has recently been accepted to the Academy of Finance's annual conference. This organization is hosted under MBAA international. A lot of the heads of the organization are professors at reputable universities but don't have many publications. I did not have to pay anything to attend the conference or submit the paper. How can I tell if this conference is legitimate?

Can you define "illegitimate conference"?

Essentially, if I put this on my resume will it be well-regarded. I am an early career researcher so I don't want to inadvertently get myself laughed out of the room.

You informally ask around your professional network.  If you lack a professional network, you probably have more serious problems beyond knowing what conferences are legitimate.

I guess you are in a field where conference proceedings value much more than journal publications, say, CS. Then you should know the list of standard top conferences and try to get there. Everything not "top" is probably not good for your CV.

Sometimes, people attend conferences just because their buddies, ahem, colleagues from other countries are going there as well and the place is nice. I doubt you'd be laughed out of the room under any circumstances unless you decide to actually boast about that for whatever reason... which is not a great idea in the first place. Absolute worst case scenario is it being a predatory conference - there are people who went there and survived - not that the waste of resources is warranted. Otherwise, @AlexanderWoo is veeery much on point.


text:
My paper is rejected repeatedly without naming a technical flaw
My theoretical physics paper is being rejected repeatedly at the editorial stage, without undergoing peer review. However, every rejection explicitly states that there is no technical error in my line of reasoning and so far none have questioned the relevance and novelty of my work. After five rejections from reputed physics journals I have received no concrete comments on why my paper is unsuitable for peer review. The paper is purely theoretical and I am repeatedly being offered the option to transfer it to another journal. Each time I do so, I get the same response - Rejected, but not due to a technical flaw in the argument. Having researched the transfer process, it seems to me my paper is technically sound and I am just not able to find the right journal to submit my work even though after each rejection I choose to submit only to journals recommended by the publisher's Transfer Desk.
From my limited perspective it appears that my paper is being judged subjectively for its implications to physics at the editorial stage itself, and since no technical flaw is as yet found, I am being shunted repeatedly through the transfer process.
I am an outsider to the academic field and since I am unaffiliated, I can't upload my paper to a pre-print server.
I would greatly appreciate any inputs.....

I think it's more accurate to say no one has bothered to check if there is a technical flaw.

'received no concrete comments' -> can you elaborate?  Some times academics speak in vague or concise terms because they assume someone experienced will know exactly what they are talking about.

Some relevant information is missing here: What did the journals give as a reason for rejection (whether you agree with it or not)? Also: Are you sure that “every rejection explicitly states that there is no technical error in my line of reasoning” instead of something along the lines of: “This rejection is not due to technical errors” (which is crucially different)? Please [edit] your question to clarify.

The alleged duplicate question is substantially different to the present question --- OP has not claimed to solve any famous problem.  Voting to reopen.

I'm not in agreement with the other answer here, which suggests that these are red-flags for such a lack of merit as to amount to "crankery".  It's possible that this is the problem, but there are other possibilities too.  The fact that the journals rejecting your paper are offering to transfer them elsewhere suggests to me that your paper probably has some merit and is not "crankery".  This kind of repeated rejection can occur for a technically sound paper merely because it does not fit the scope of the journal well --- I've had experiences where editors of multiple journals make positive comments on a paper I submit, but they just think it's not the type of paper that suits their journal well (too technical, not technical enough, etc.).
For a physics paper that advances some technically sound argument, but is having trouble finding a proper home (possibly due to scope issues), I would recommend you consider submitting to the journal PLOS-ONE (Physics).  This journal takes a different approach to other journals, insofar as they do not consider issues of "scope" or "significance".  If the paper is technically sound, has a proper methodology, and has any value at all, then it will usually be accepted (see here for some more information on their selection proccess).  At minimum, if your paper is rejected from this journal then there should be some clarity with respect to its technical approach.
I have previously had a fairly quirky paper (a game theoretic analysis of a popular children's game) published in PLOS-ONE.  This paper had previously been submitted to about five or six different journals over about six years, without success, until I basically gave up on having it published and waited for more years with it sitting on my computer.  In each case the previous journals really liked the paper, and commented positively on it, but they felt that the scope was not in keeping with the types of articles they usually publish.  For some journals it did not develop theoretical methods enough, for others it was too technical, for others the subject matter was too quirky, and so on.  Anyway, after I'd given up on ever having it published, another academic recommended PLOS-ONE for the paper and they accepted and published it, since they were less concerned with scope and significance.  It is possible you might have the same experience as me.

In my experience, physicists do not know about or care about PLOS.

At present count, the journal has published over 25,000 physics papers (most presumably written by physicists).

This seems like a good way to check if a paper is reasonably sound, with a minimal amount of effort. Maybe not many people are reading PLOS, but at least it's published.

I’m with @AnonymousPhysicist here: PLOS is not a go-to journal for physics although it does have good cross-over appeal in some subfields.  Simply browsing the list of section editors will confirm the relative importance of physics compared to biological topics.

For comparison to 25,000: https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions https://journals.aps.org/metrics

Also, check your own link.  Those mostly are not physics papers.

The comparison in the links just shows that PLOS ONE has far and away more physics papers than any of the other listed journals (approx 10x as many as most of the linked journals).

Stepping back from whether PLOS ONE is popular among physicists, the OP is in a situation where he has tried many of the popular journals and failed.  If you have a better suggestion than PLOS ONE in this situation, you are welcome to put it forward.

@Ben Indeed. At some point, the question isn't "Am I grubbing for a slightly better-ranked journal" but "Is this thing going to a reputable venue anywhere, ever?" Plus, if you're not in academia, journal reputation isn't as big of a deal so long as the peer review is competent. Lower-ranked places might not have as much exposure, but it will show up on Google Scholar plus you can always forward the paper to people you meet at conferences.

I would respectfully point out that your post has a few "red flags" for what we in the business call "crankery."

My...paper is being rejected..without undergoing peer review. However, every rejection explicitly states that there is no technical error in my line of reasoning and so far none have questioned the relevance and novelty of my work.

This does not make sense, how could the editor "explicitly state" that there is no technical error if the paper has not been peer reviewed? How would the editor know? Moreover, even published papers don't get an "imprimatur" that the work is correct; rather, the work is judged sound enough to be published.
It is more likely that the editor said something like "this desk rejection does not necessarily imply that your work is not technically sound" -- as mentioned in the comments, the paper has not been peer reviewed, so no one has bothered to check if the work is correct or not.

From my limited perspective it appears that my paper is being judged subjectively for its implications to physics... I am an outsider to the academic field

I'm not sure quite what you mean here. Hopefully you are not alleging that your paper is so groundbreaking that the physics community has formed a conspiracy against you. Rather, I assume you mean that you are not getting a "fair shake" since your conclusions seem so surprising. Such things can happen, especially since you are unaffiliated with a research institution. We like to tell the story of Prof. Zhang, where the system worked as it should. However, it's true that you may need to take some extra steps to get people to take you seriously.

After five rejections from reputed physics journals...

After five rejections, it does seem like something is wrong. This could be something minor, like selecting a more appropriate journal. Or it could be something major, like the entire idea being "crankery." Personally, I would rather know -- if I am wasting my time, I would rather someone tell me so that I can pursue other activities instead.
So: I would recommend that you buy a few hours of a graduate student's time (preferably one who works in your field). In exchange for, say, $200, they should be willing to spend a few hours giving you a peer-review. If the work is mostly good, they may have advice on selecting a journal and writing it up. If the work is mostly bad, they may be able to point out some technical flaws. But in the latter case, I would recommend abandoning the effort entirely -- I've seen before that there is often a disconnect where the expert says "this is totally wrong; for example, your electron mass is an order of magnitude too high" and the non-expert hears "if I can solve the electron mass problem, we're good!" This communications breakdown can lead to much wasted time.

"Hopefully you are not alleging that your paper is so groundbreaking that the physics community has formed a conspiracy against you. Rather, I assume you mean that you are not getting a "fair shake" since your conclusions seem so surprising. " - to me it sounded more like they are saying that their conclusions are not anything radical, so journals just don't care to publish a minor improvement from a no-name. Though I guess "judged subjectively for its implications" can be interpreted both ways.

This answer is a bit harsh and ignores the simpler explanation that the asker has not tried the right kind of journal.

Also think the idea of paying a random grad student to do peer review is a bit… strange. As a grad student if I got an email from a rando offering hundreds of dollars to do this, a lot of spam flags would go off in my brain and I’d hit delete immediately.

On the other hand, writing to random professors worked for Srinivasa Ramanujan.

If the asker cannot locate the right journal for their paper how are they going to locate the right grad student? Grad students don't exactly have broad knowledge.

@AnonymousPhysicist that would be true of one or two desk rejections, but if the paper is repeatedly recommended for transfer multiple times and turned down systematically, there’s a deeper problem, if not with the contents then with the presentation of the material.

@ZeroTheHero It would be wrong to assume the transfer recommendation was thoughtful, as opposed to automatic.

@AnonymousPhysicist my experience is that some thought goes into this.  The issue here is that no thought can go into this once or twice, maybe 3x, but 5x?  The exceptional situation here is the number of repeated occurrences.

For the record: I do agree with the comments above stating that hiring a grad student to review your paper is unorthodox; however, after many years on this site, I have seen many manifestations of this question without ever seeing anyone propose a better idea than mine :-)


text:
NSF Postdoc Fellowship Announcement?
I'm having trouble finding information on when announcements might be made on fellowship awards. I'm specifically interested in Biology "Rules of Life" track.

First week of February - usually. Now may be different because of covid-19


text:
Physics Ph.D. Prospect
I am a physics undergraduate student in Asia. In the past, I planned to apply for graduate school once I finished my undergraduate. However, nowadays, I'm starting to have doubts about that plan. One reason is that I am worried about my future career. Another reason is that I'm not sure whether I can endure graduate school or not (My original plan is to enroll in an American graduate school).
I do like physics and am eager to learn more. It's just that I'm unsure whether I should choose the career path of academia or industry and whether I should continue to graduate school or not.
Please give me your thoughts/knowledge on this matter. It will be really helpful for me.

This is too personal for an answer here. You would do better to consult a local source. One of your current professors might be a good choice. You might also look at what industry options are open to you and what life there would be like. But the value system is yours.

@Buffy What do you think about getting a Ph.D. and working in the industry? Is it overkill? Will a bachelor's degree be enough for industry?

It depends on the industry job you want. Start by looking at job descriptions for companies and positions you would be interested in having in the next 5-10 years. See what the education requirements are.

The world is your oyster. The question is super unspecific and depends on individual factors a lot. VTC. I would suggest looking up questions about industry vs academia career tracks here and doing some reading first.

Graduate school is not for everyone. That's not meant to be disrespectful in any way - it's just the way it is.
In your case, I would recommend that you think long and hard about going. You would be going to a new country, to places you've never been before - with all that entails. While that's not a terrible thing (many people travel to places they've never been), it is certainly not low-stress when this new place is your home for the next 6-8 years. The normal stress of graduate school is nothing to laugh at, and adding this kind of stress on top of it is something you really need to consider. I've seen a lot of people crumble under the stress - it's not pretty.
As you said, you should really think about what you want from your career. The job market for people with advanced physics degrees is not super great. You should ask yourself exactly what this degree is going to do for you. Do you NEED it for the career that you want, or are you doing this because you don't know what to do right now?
On top of that, there is the cost issue. Can you afford graduate school? There are lots of places that will happily take people with a physics background; if they think you need more education, they will send you (and pay for it). If you can't afford it now, are you willing to go into serious debt afterward? (The correct answer is "No.")
If you asked me for advice, I would tell you that you'll do much better (and be much happier) getting a job in industry.


text:
Is the German 6-year long position of "researcher for habilitation" (called "Habilitationsstelle") a senior or junior position?
I am trying to understand if a 6-year long position of "researcher for habilitation" (called "Habilitationsstelle"), and that is offered in German universities, would be a junior position (just after the PhD) or with some level of seniority (maybe after 4-6 years of postdocs).
Other way around, what could be the average age for people who start the "Habilitationsstelle" in Germany ? Maybe just after the PhD, or after several years of postdocs ?
Also, could the "Habilitationsstelle" be equivalent to an Assistant Professor?

From experience: several people I know have started their Habilitationsstelle straight after completion of their PhD

Thanks a lot for your comment! Given this comment, to me, it looks like a junior position, with a sort of unique 6-year block of postdoc instead of the very common succession of 1 or 2 years long contracts as postdoc.... Therefore, a sort of long postdoc... :-) Therefore, to my understanding, if for example you have already 5-6 years of postdoc experience (plus other work experiences), this "Habilitationsstelle" does not look like a real step forward in your career, but more a continuation of the current status of postdoc...

One is not supposed to be employed on temporary positions at German universities for more than 6 years after the PhD. While there are exceptions to this rule, this indicates that such a position should be available to recent PhDs.
Such a position shouldn't be considered equivalent to a US-style Assistant Professorship, because of the lack of independence. It is a postdoc position.

Thanks a lot @Arno!! ... But I don't understand something... So, if you have already 5 years of postdocs in another country (i.e. not Germany), and you get that position of "Habilitationsstelle" in Germany, it means that you can be employed for only 1 year for that position of "Habilitationsstelle" in Germany (even though it is a 6-year position)??

@limone Positions outside of Germany doesn't count for the 6 year rule.

In addition, if in that position you are supposed to get third-party funds to hire some PhDs (and even 1 post-doc), would that position of "Habilitationsstelle" still be considered  as a postdoc job ??

Ah ok thanks :-)

@limone Is this a NachwuchsgruppenleiterIn?

Well, the word "NachwuchsgruppenleiterIn" was not written explicitly in the job ad, but, during the interview, it was clearly stated to get third-party funds to create a small group with up to 4 PhDs and 1 post-doc (at the very least 1 PhD student)...the job ad was in English and the title was "Researcher for Habilitation (Habilitationsstelle)"...and there was also something like this in the job ad: "It is a qualification position for a total of six years, with a possibility to do a habilitation (qualification as university lecturer)."

@limone If the role indeed includes applying for funding in your own name, and then being the official supervisor of PhD students, I'd indeed be inclined to consider it an Assistant-Professor-equivalent. On the other hand, it might be that the role is to "assist" the Professor in charge in doing those things.

Many thanks @Arno!

Hi, I got something more specific, that I am not able to interpret..."For the first three years, the designation "scientific employee" is applicable. Employment is in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement of the federal states (TV-L). According to this, a temporary appointment with the designation "Akademischer Rat auf Zeit" would theoretically be possible"...

"Such a position shouldn't be considered equivalent to a US-style Assistant Professorship, because of the lack of independence" I would assume that depends on the specifics of the position, and is something that has to be clarified (and potentially negotiated) with the associated chair. If one gets to publish and apply for funding independently, then it is comparable to a US-style assistant professorship.

In Germany (and countries with similar systems) the route to becoming a professor requires* an additional qualification above your doctorate. This process is known as Habilitation. So a "Habilitationsstelle" is the position / job that you will do while working towards this even higher qualification. Same as a Doktorstelle is the position / job you will hold while working towards your doctorate. So yes it is postdoctoral, but not really equivalent to the way the US or UK systems work.
* Thanks to the commenters who have clarified it's not strictly required, it's also possible to have your body of work judged to be equivalent to having completed a Habilitation.

Many thanks @jovisg!!

To nitpick a bit here: The additional qualification for a professorship does not need to be a Habilitation. Doing enough work so that it counts as equivalent ("Habilitationsäquivalente Leistungen") is also sufficient. How common that route is depends on the subject culture. With the "1000 Tenure-Track Stellen Programm" by the federal government having started a while back, it's at least moderately common, though.

Thanks a lot @DCTLib!! From your comment I understand that the Habilitation and therefore the Habilitationsstelle is not really necessary (even though quite useful) to get a professorship (maybe directly as Associate Professor, W2)

@limone Yes, it's not strictly needed if the respective state laws mention the possibility of "Habilitationsäquivalente Leistungen" (which I believe all do). However, hiring committees will want to see substantial research experience, teaching experience, and success in attracting third party funding. Not all scientific positions enable you to work towards ticking all of these boxes.

thanks a lot @DCTLib!!


text:
Is the "Akademischer Rat auf Zeit" (offered in Germany) equivalent to a postdoc or to an Assistant Professor?
Once I asked about the exact translation of a job title offered at a German University, and related to a 6 year long position, generally called as "habilitationsstelle", the reply was something like this:
"For the first three years, the designation "scientific employee" is applicable (which is not further specified in a contract). Employment is in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement of the federal states (TV-L). According to this, a temporary appointment with the designation "Akademischer Rat auf Zeit" would theoretically be possible if all civil service law requirements were met."
Giving this brief context, that I hope is clear enough, what would the "Akademischer Rat auf Zeit" position correspond to?
Maybe to a postdoc, or to an Assistant Professor, or something else ?

Academic ranks and positions vary quite a bit between countries, and often there is no direct equivalence.

Ah ok, thanks a lot :-)

An "akademischer Rat" is not an assistant professor or a tenure track position. Those positions have actually "professor" in the name (actually, maybe even "tenure track"), and are paid according to the TV-L W table.
An "akademischer Rat" can be a postdoc (maybe a long-term one preparing for his "habilitation"), but he can also be a doctoral candidate. The name "akademischer Rat" just indicates the type of contract with the state. ("Auf Zeit" just means "temporary", i.e., not permanent).
An akademischer Rat is an "official" ("Beamter"), which is a type of position that has more privileges than a standard employee of the state "öffentlicher Dienst". An "akademischer Rat auf Zeit" is paid according to the TV-L A tables, and the extra privileges have to do with medical insurance and unemployment money.
A "wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter" is paid according to the TV-L E tables and is a normal employee of the state. Although it is more common to see postdocs in the "akademischer Rat" position, I have seen both doctoral candidates and postdocs being put in any of the two positions, depending on which one got free at the moment. In general, positions as "akademischer Rat" are becoming rare and in many places only "wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter" is available for both doctoral candidates and postdocs.
Note: the linked tables are valid only for the federal state of Bayern. If you are in another state, you have to check the tables for that state.

I would add that assistant professors do not exist as such in Germany and akademischer Rat is its closest equivalent, although there are many crucial differences.

@wimi, if Bayern includes Munich / Munchen, then we are on the right path

@Warcraft thanks a lot, so, the
akademischer Rat might still be considered as a sort of Assistant Professor, or Junior Professor.. this is exactly what I am trying to understand, since, the acceptance of this offer would heavily depend on the "equivalent position". In other words, stepping back to a postdoc would be a firm "no", otherwise, if it is a sort of "professor-like" position it would be a "yes"

@limone To which extent the position is "professor-like" will depend on the specifics of the position, in particular, the amount of research and teaching, and whether you will be expected to develop your own research line vs. contribute to the research line of your boss.

Thanks @lighthouse keeper! Good to know :-) However, I was just thinking... In case it is an "akademischer Rat" (or a general "habilitationsstelle"), what can you write on an English CV..? I guess you cannot write the title "professor" event though it is a professor-like position... I mean, at the end of the day, the title is important for the next steps... Even though to the following employer you say "my duties and tasks are the same as of an assistant professor", being an "akademischer Rat", I think you can write "postdoc", or maximum "postdoc senior", but not some type of professor title..

@limone You can write something like "Akademischer Rat (position in the German academic system, comparable to assistant professor)" and then explain the specifics of the position. Of course, the specifics should then be of a kind that indeed makes it comparable to an assistant professorship.

Ok, thanks a lot !!

"the extra privileges have to do with medical insurance and unemployment money" I would be surprised if somebody who becomes unemployed after previous work as an "Akademischer Rat" would get any unemployment money. The priviledge is more that you do not have to pay the monthly contribution to the system.

@Snijderfrey you get no unemployment money, but you get Übergangsgeld, which is some months of full salary after being dismissed or your appointment ending. Quite similar to unemployment money, in fact...

A postition as "Akademischer Rat", whether temporary ("auf Zeit") or permanent, requires a doctoral degree or equivalent, so is definitely a post-doc position. At least that is the case in Bavaria.

RIGHT, AS @Snijderfrey notes: You have to go to private health insurance and pay half yourself, the other half comes from the university. You also don't pay into the retirement fund or the unemployment insurance, so you are basically on welfare if you don't get a job right after.
An no, do NOT use "assistant professor". It is absolutely not a professorship, but often a teaching job with a bit of research bolted on.

Strong disagree with @Wrzlprmft. An "akademischer Rat" is not close to an assistant professor position. You will not enjoy the privileges of professors in Germany, such as independently supervising PhD students, independent teaching, stronger voting power in committees, eligibility for certain grants, using the title "Prof.", pay scale "W" (instead of "A"), etc.

@MKR: Of course there are some differences to professors (just as there is between full and assistant professors elsewhere). Also, I didn’t claim that there is exact correspondence between assistant professors (which differ across countries anyway) and akademischer Rat. Going through your points: 1) If you have a habilitation, you can de facto independently supervise PhD students. 2) You can definitely teach your own courses (I am in a similar position and doing that). 3) Academic self-administration compares badly between countries anyway.

… 4) I am not sure about de-jure grant eligibility, but since de-facto eligibility strongly correlates with reputation which in turn strongly correlates with professorship. Also, I am would be surprised if there are no grants limited to full professors elsewhere. 5) The title is the minor difference we were starting from; no surprise here. 6) The payment scheme is truly minor. The actual pay is more interesting. But this one is not necessarily the same for full and assistant professors either. Also, there is some overlap between the A and W scales depending on experience.

The position of "Akademischer Rat auf Zeit" in Germany is typically a temporary academic position that is equivalent to a postdoctoral researcher rather than an assistant professor. This position is often held by individuals who have completed their doctoral degrees and are gaining further research and teaching experience before pursuing a more permanent academic position.
In the German academic system, an assistant professor position is usually referred to as “Juniorprofessor” or “Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter” with tenure track. These positions are more close to entry-level faculty positions and are generally considered higher in rank and responsibility than a postdoctoral or temporary position like “Akademischer Rat auf Zeit”.
Also, check specific details and requirements for each position as the terminologies and academic structures can vary between institutions understand its exact nature and responsibilities.

You need to check with the German state in which the university is located, as they make the rules.


text:
Is it legal to post an assignment from a book?
If my teacher is posting photos of questions given in a book in our class group for us to solve, is it legal or ethical?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/1744/64

The question is a bit subtle and requires interpretation. It depends on how much is "posted" and where and why it is posted. Copyright is a matter of civil law (most places), though the law varies. If you do an online search for "fair use for education" you will see some of the subtitles.
Republishing copyrighted material is a violation in many cases and does not require doing so for profit. Nor does it require that you somehow acquired the material improperly. If you republish all of the exercises in some textbook you will likely get sued if the copyright owner objects. The question is whether what you distribute to students can be considered republishing, but putting it on a public facing web site almost certainly is.
Small amounts from a copyrighted text are probably fine (probably). But one of the important questions in interpreting fair use is whether the republishing reduces the value of the work to the copyright holder. For some books the exercises are one of the most important and valuable elements. One or two exercises is probably fine. All the exercises is definitely not so fine, though the copyright owner needs to object (most jurisdictions).
Distributing small amounts privately to students (i.e. not a public facing site) are probably fine. But if the intent is to let hundreds of students avoid purchasing the book, then not so fine, perhaps.
The idea behind copyright is to let creators profit from their creations. If you attack that right in significant ways you can have problems. Originally the right was for a limited time, but that is changing, making the question more contentious. The secondary purpose was to encourage creators to contribute to the common good. Unlimited copyright goes against that idea and is one of the reasons for fair-use exemptions for such things as education, research, and (literary) criticism...