text:
Identifying pleasant PhD supervisors
I want to pursue a PhD at an institution in Japan that I don't know first hand. As lab websites or personal webpages don't really reveal the personalities of professors, it isn't easy to know in advance which professor's working style and personality could match my own.
Are there ways to determine whether a professor will be a good match for me?

I've rewritten your question in an attempt to make it on topic. I don't understand what you mean by "pleasant," so perhaps edit that aspect. Also, I'm a little unclear as to your precise question, so perhaps edit to address. (I vote to reopen.)

This is one of the best and most important questions here.

This may be relevant: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/30285/72855

Thank you for the suggestion @Solar Mike

Do you have a bachelors only, or a higher degree?

I would be quite surprised if any students or postdocs would "betray" their advisor, in Japan.

Only way is to talk to their students.  I for example become very unpleasant if you are not performing.

I would note that when you ask the students, you need to read between the lines to a certain extent. Just as letters of recommendation are always positive, but supervisors will look out for what is not said in them, you should apply the same principles when you are assessing a supervisor.
Let me give an example: I was interviewing for a postdoc in the US, and the supervisor had the students and postdocs take me out for lunch. Over lunch I asked how hard people worked, and were they well looked after. The answers were the expected - they were well looked after, the boss had high expectations, but supported them well to meet these expectations, they worked long hours, but they wanted to. Then I asked them what they liked to do outside the lab. Silence. Apparently noone had any hobbies. Eventaully one of them ventured that they drummed in a band, but later came up to me and asked me not to share this with the supervisor. Perhaps it was a joke that went over my head. Perhaps it there were other things going on. But I wasn't going to take the risk of ending up somewhere where people didn't want their supervisor knowing they had a life outside work.

Asking current PhD students as Azor Ahai recommends is a good source. Another source I like are the PhD thesis of former students. These usually contain extensive acknowledgements and thankyous to the supervisor. Various information about the style of supervision can be gotten there. Note that only positive things are mentioned, so also look out for things supervisors are not thanked for.

In the US, typically, you would speak to current graduate students about their working style. In general, a cold email usually acceptable, but don't pester.
However, you might run into very different cultural expectations if you aren't yourself Japanese, so I would take their perspectives with a grain of salt.

Have you experience with writing cold emails on that matter? For myself, I would probably not write much to a person I do not know(I might depend on the prof's goodwill my whole life!) and definely no negatives on them.

The best supervisors will volunteer a mechanism by which you can contact existing or former mentees. I would not work with someone who reacted negatively when asked the supervisor to put you in touch with some. But I should point out, this is UK/US. Cultural expectations might well be different in Japan.

True, I would definitely be very cautious of putting anything in writing if I were disgruntled. Ask if they have time for a skype, and chat with them to build trust first. Also, in a really good lab, people will tend to be effusive and straight out recommend you to come. If they don't do that, I would be wary. As Azor mentions though, culture is also an important factor here.

If you can, try to find out who was the most disgruntled member to leave the lab, and ask that person. If that student says things were okay, or you get the impression this person might have be the source of difficulty, it's a good sign.

What? Do you have experience with this? It is hard to believe that a stranger would hand you a name instead of just ignoring this strange question.

Yes, I do. And, some people will, some people won’t.

So have you asked someone who the most disgruntled member was or have you given out the name of this member to someone?

Like with so many things in academia, the key is knowing the right people. Do any of your current or previous supervisors know someone at that institute? Or have even met the professors you are talking about at a conference or somewhere else? If this is not the case, they might know someone who does, and so on. These connections are important, especially since applying for a PhD with connections is most definitely beneficial.
Don't be afraid to ask people you know for help, they will understand your situation and will most likely want to help you.


text:
Corresponding author published article without sending final proof to all authors, corrigendum
My professor was the corresponding author of an article written by me as first author and one second co-author. Having the correspondence with the editor, the professor didn't give much information about the actual status of the article, allthough I asked several times for it.
Some months later, I got the notice that the article is now published. I never got a final proof of the article from the professor/ corresponding author and when I read through the published version, I was in huge shock as I noticed some formatting issues. However, the worst and most severe thing is, that one sentence was "corrected", stating the contrary of what it was supposed to mean. Obviously there is now a mistake in the article. This mistake doesn't affect the measurements results, but it is contradictful within the overall statement of the article.
I asked my professor about writing an erratum concerning this issue. The answer was, that he assumes this sentence not to be noticed and therefore, an erratum would be too much effort. I am feeling really bad being the first author of this paper, where I know about the mistake. Do you think I can ask the journal for an erratum without the consens of my professor?
Furthermore, I want to publish one more article of the work I have done, but the professor still claims the corresponding authorship. As my professor answers my emails only within months and as I don't have much trust in his actions anymore, I really don't know what to do. Does anybody have experience with such a situation?
--
EDIT: thank you for your answers, they are very helpful to me. The paper is a non-open access paper and already published in a printed issue of the journal. Furthermore, it is about a subject what I am not researching anymore, so there are no follow-up papers planned in the same journal.
I think my corresponding author will not be amused when I am writing the publisher as he already refused a corrigendum. You see this is a really tricky situation. What about writing a comment to the paper? I already saw remarks from third researchers concerning existing papers...maybe that could be a solution?

1.If  your article is just published OnlineFirst (version of your paper published online with a DOI but not having a volume/issue number details) and not allocated in an issue then, instead of an erratum you can you can request the publisher to make the requested changes at the issue level. Some publishers do not make any changes to the article published OnlineFirst, but they will make the changes at the issue level, which will then replace the online version. For every article the publisher has a main point of contact (corresponding author) and the publisher directly contacts them for any kind of publication concerns. In your case, first check if your article is not published in an issue then you can go ahead requesting the changes to the publisher keeping your corresponding author in the email chain.

If your paper is already published in an issue and you feel there are formatting issues (the formatting is done as per the journal style), then you can get back to the publisher requesting them if it can be fixed. If they agree, along with the request you can make the changes to the contradicting statement in your article.
If the formatting is correct as per the publisher, then you may add a short statement in your upcoming paper (to be published in the same journal) stating the correction (with reference to page nos, Vol/Issue no. and section details) of your previous article and provide the DOI link of the previous article. Request the publisher to link this statement to your previous article section where there was an error.

I hope that answers your question.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why attend predatory colleges in the US?
I just read this article about predatory colleges in the US:

S. Cagle, These students were ruined by predatory colleges. Now they’re getting even.

I am not from the US and didn't ask in the comments of that site because I wouldn't want to insult anyone concerned.
I just wondered: before you enroll for any degree, would you compare what the college's officials say with reality? Like, looking on the internet to find people with a degree from that school who got jobs, asking a local employment worker, asking at a local employer if they would consider giving a job to someone with a degree from that school, etc.
How is it this article says the students were so young they could not possibly have known they were being tricked? If you are old enough to go into debt with thousands of dollars for a college education, how can you not be old enough to check for the quality of that education first?
Why would people attend predatory colleges?

@Dirk I think the article was the catalyst to his question but really has nothing to do with the root question, "Why do people attend predatory colleges?"

Maybe, but in it's present form the question is really not suited. The parts "would you not...?", "Is not that just plain common sense?", "How is it...?", "How can you not...?" clearly indicate this.

@Dirk I agree. I edited it a bit without changing the overall question, but I hope the OP can clean it up further.

This question could also be boiled down to the much more general question - "Why do people fall for scams?", which is a question as old as the oldest fool.

Latin may be a dead language, but most folks still know the meaning of "caveat emptor".

Kids are often deperate to get into college, and are often ignorant of other outlets like community college if they don't have the grades. People see what they want to see, and when you're a high school graduate with a 2.0, you'll be excited to attend just about anywhere. They are also ignorant of how employers hire students, often having targeted universities from which to recruit. They do not realize thier application will not even be looked at if they got a degree from a non-target school.

@tjd , no they don't. Most don't even know there is a thing called latin. Or emptor.

A lot of diploma mills recruit former military members who have their tuition paid for (or heavily subsidized by) the GI Bill.

"programs offered by schools like Corinthian and its subsidiaries, scam students into expensive but ultimately worthless degree programs that leave them with high rates of loan default and low rates of graduate job placement".......and this differs from traditional colleges and universities how?

@coburne There is a big difference between schools like Corinthian and more traditional schools.  Traditional colleges and universities have paid protection money to the right accreditation agencies and Corinthian has not.

FWIW some people do all right with their degrees from DeVry, and for some its about the only option since its faster and has easier entry (ex: nursing majors).  Reminds me of people who get "non marketable degrees" from normal colleges, even in other countries...

"For profit Colleges": I'm not american, but from what I know about higher education in the US, all colleges are basically "for profit".

@Fatalize all organizations are "for profit".  So called "not for profit" colleges just pay out their profits in different ways.

@tjd In university, I used "ceteris paribus" a lot. Everyone has to take economics, so they know what it means. In the 7 years since I graduated, I don't think a single person has known what it means. I've had to drop it from my vernacular which is unfortunate because it's quite succinct.

I'm always baffled by articles like this. How do you commit thousands of dollars and years of your (or your child's) life to something without even googling the university to check?

It would be useful if someone could add a quick description of what a predatory college really is. The article is quite long and verbose. TL;DR: TL;DR.

@Federico Poloni: How could you give a useful answer, if you don't understand the question?

@JørgenFogh I don't want to give an answer myself, I want to read and understand other people's answers and the discussion. And in any case your point is misleading: one doesn't need to read the long story of the troubled life of a former student to answer the question "why attend predatory colleges", as long as they know what they are.

@Superbest But you're assuming that people do in fact know how to get useful search results from Google and even if they do get them, that they're able to interpret them.  If you have no idea about a field, how are you to determine the quality of the experts that are doing the lectures? University itself is basically an appeal from authority. If you're unable to determine its authority yourself, then you'll just have to trust someone else. This is where accreditation programs come into play. The linked article mentioned that some of the collages had accreditations and some lost them. cont.

cont. If you know nothing about a field, who can you trust other than an accreditation agency? Even searching on the Internet can be very misleading, due to issues with sample sizes you can find in your answer. I mean, going to a forum where people complain about something can be very similar to going to a hospital and concluding that everyone almost in the city is sick, because hospital is full of sick people. cont.

cont. Also I don't like to make huge sweeping statements about groups of people, but in this case I think I'll have to. There are people who are in fact unable to think logically. You can't explain things to such people and solid information is useless for them. Instead, they look for emotional arguments and in such cases, marketing can work very nicely. They'll believe something because someone told them or they heard it. It is my belief, from doing a bit of research here, that there may be a significant number of them in the "victims" of predatory schools.

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

@Strongbad: Source? As it’s “a lot,” care to share several examples?

@gnometorule these were early hits for me https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/gi-bill-benefitting-profit-colleges-instead-helping-veterans and https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/04/obama_targets_diploma_mills_th.html but a google search turns up a lot of stories.

@SteongBad: Thanks! I misunderstood your comment though: I thought you said that those colleges are heavily operated by veterans (I saw no reason why that would be the case), not that they dupe veterans. Thanks for clarifying!

A few possibilities:

These people genuinely don't know any better. They think a degree is a degree. I would guess that they come from parents that did not attend college. A friend of mine started at a for-profit school because she really didn't know that there was a difference between my 4 year bachelor degree and her 12 month online degree.
People want to take shortcuts and these schools know that.
These schools spend a lot of money on commercials and marketing to try to convince people to attend. It isn't surprising that people would fall victim if you see a commercial for a school 3 times a day.
These schools also promote their currents/past students to help recruit their friends. I have certainly seen this on my own social media feeds.
I once had a manager at a large company that was working on a degree from a diploma mill because the company was imposing a new policy that all managers had to have a degree, but it didn't matter from where.

So to directly answer your questions: No, a lot of people probably don't look into the details of past student success. The type of people that would do this, aren't the ones being targeted by these schools. And even if they do, you're bound to find some successes (confirmation bias) which the school will proudly advertise.
Unfortunately, these types of schools prey on uneducated people, so while it seems like common sense to us, those people may really be getting tricked and yet the government continues to have surprisingly loose regulation.

+1d for all of this but especially the commercials part. I have family members with mountains of debt from for-profit 'schools' and they were 100% sold on the flashy commercials and marketing which, if you don't think too much about it, made the college look great. They also throw very expensive, lavish 'parties' for recruitment and of course that draws people in who are attracted to that kind of thing. They make a ton of money, they have that money to spend on marketing.

Very good, but realistically people do very little research on non-profit schools also - it's not like these other students are somehow already more intelligent or harder working. There are significant discrepancies between advertised (and non-profit universities do a tremendous amount of advertising!) and the actual salaries, hire rates, and later academic success that results from their programs.

In addition a lot of people just want a certificate that will get them a job, not a 4 year degree. From what I've see people who go to these colleges want to become electricians, HVAC techs, welders or medical assistants. A lot of the predatory colleges advertise that they'll train you and place you in a job (or help you get one) and people think that's a straightforward path to improve their lives, not realizing they are paying through the nose for something they can get at their local community college for 1/3 the price.

Also, some people can't get into a 4 year college or at least think they can't.

"These people genuinely don't know any better."  Exactly.  These schools actively seek students who don't know any better; that's precisely why they're called "predatory."

I was a professor at a major for-profit university in the US.  A couple campuses, out of many had been caught in scandal for preying on students financially.  The university, in my opinion, was not trying to scam people.  However, when you pay people to recruit students by volume, you will get bad apples.
I taught A+ certification.  The academic side was solid.  The teachers wanted to teach, the curriculum was correct.  The books, the labs, the premade tests, etc were all, in my opinion, extremely satisfactory.  If someone wanted to learn, they most definitely could.
My classes were filled with mostly inner-city students that were simply uneducated.  They could barely read or write.  They could only do the most basic of math problems.  I had one student told me he graduated with straight D's because his school didn't want to give him F's and hold him back for a year.  I had a couple of students who were there because they committed a crime and a judge told them it is either school or jail.  I had a few students who said they were there because their parents said it was go to school or leave the house.
There were a few students who definitely had potential.  Mostly, it was the older ones who wanted to do better in life.  They were there for the right reasons and were willing to learn.
Needless to say, it was not what I thought teaching would be.
The reality is, their  public schools failed them.  These students have no chance to go to a quality university.  Nor would they have a chance in a local community college.  They simply did not have the education needed.
So that's were the for profit schools come in.  They give these students a chance to learn a trade and be successful.  I do not believe they are out to fleece the students out of their money.  It does happen, but there are bad apples in every business.
The for-profit schools, admit people who can't go anywhere else.  However, some of those students are destined to fail.  But in reality, isn't every school like that?
Now, as an employer, I went to a local for-profit school to hire some low level IT techs.  We had one employee who graduated from that school and was extremely competent.  However, I interviewed many students who had just graduated, or were about to, and I was extremely disappointed.  Students who graduated from the school could not answer the most basic IT questions.  This school failed them horribly.  There is no excuse for having students graduate and not be able to do the basics.
So here is the real question:  Do you deny a student a chance at an education, given their odds might be slim?

Very interesting perspective, thank you for sharing. Two things come to my mind. (A) I wish there were [better] state funded programs to give such people a chance at an education and (B) I don't think the real question is about denying a student a chance at an education, but rather denying a business from financially ruining a student's life with debt when the employment outcomes are far worse than graduates of non-profit schools.

@AustinHenley the public schools are the issue.  That is the state funded program.  As for ruining a students financial future, regular colleges/universities do that as well.  I think for-profit schools' are really out for the student's benefit, but they are a business and have to make money.

I do want to add, that not all departments of my school were like the IT side.  The nursing, medical coding, and electricians departments were very successful, i believe.

I am a long-time participant of this site. I have reviewed 2719 first posts on this site. I must say this is one of the best first time posts I have reviewed. Thank you for sharing this information with us.

@scaaahu it's not a first post. And I'm #33 on the second largest se site, super user.  :)

Thank you for this answer. So, the problem is not in the existence of for-profit, but that it mixes decent schools like yours, with others where the idea of a nursing degree clinical experience is visiting a creationism museum.

@Davidmh problems exist at every school.  Major public universities have scandals as well.  I believe people simply have a larger reaction to headlines that say people are taking advantage of poor students.  No one writes exposes on rich students getting degrees in philosophy and then cant find  jobs.

So your school accepted people who could barely read and write and charge them money for college level classes? How is that not predatory? Clearly they knew the students do not have the necessary skills to master the subject at hand, yet they happily took their money.

@ventsyv no. Some of the students got their certifications and started a career in IT. Some did not. At the time I was there if a student wasn't showing up to classes or did not perform adequately within 90 days they got their money back.  Simple as that.

"Nor would they have a chance in a local community college." Can you please elaborate on this statement? I always thought that community colleges were easy to get into and were designed specifically for all these issues you mentioned (giving people a second chance, people who can't read/write/do basic math). I thought if you were over 18, you could get into a community college. To me, it seems like you are saying that these for-profit colleges are there for the same reason CC's exist. I don't see a difference.

@FixedPoint Even local community colleges have academic requirements to get in.  Google your local CC's requirements, they do have them.  Many of my students would not meet those requirements.  Even those that did, met them on paper only.

What do you mean you taught "A+ certification"?

@David Hill CompTIA A+ is a major certification for PC technicians.

@Keltari: "Whatcom Community College welcomes all future students who are at least 18 years of age or who have graduated from high school or earned a GED certificate."  So based on your story of "one student told me he graduated with straight D's" without merit, such a student would be accepted.  As I understand it, different community colleges have different entry requirements, especially in different areas.

Another reason people attend a predatory school is that they may benefit from it.
I know plenty of people who work at large companies, government, etc., where there is a flat "Master's Degree = 20% raise" rule, or something of the sort. In these cases, while the student may realize that they are not getting a proper education, and they are paying more than they should for what they are receiving, it is still worth it to them financially. They work full time, so getting a proper degree may take too much time. And while they are over paying for the "education" they get, they still end up making more than if they did not attend the school.
This doesn't account for all the students, especially not the ones who find themselves in great debt, but it does account for some of the schools' students.

At a former organization, I was paid slightly less than a peer for the same work simply because I had a Masters degree and my peer had a PhD.  If the differential had been large enough, it could have paid for a diploma mill PhD.

+1 Cliff AB . If an organisation has a relatively rigid pay Vs Quals scale then extra "study " would be worth it for some employees especially if its easy .In NZ the blabour market is more deregulated so there is not such a direct relationship between pay and degrees.

I remember speaking with my stepfather about social reform, and how my vision for helping people in less fortunate nations involved creating things in first world nations, which would hopefully inspire people in the less fortunate nations.  He pointed something out to me: the people in those nations are too focused on their severe problems, like finding out how they are going to get food, and that focus can prevent their ability to focus on things like social reform.
Similarly, unwealthy Americans may notice the riches of others in their society.  When a college offers them an "opportunity" that they didn't think they had before, it may seem quite attractive.
They know full well that this college-I've-never-heard-of is less famous than the Ivy League schools (Harvard/Yale/UCLA/MIT).  Yet, they don't expect to meet the admissions requirements of those famous schools.  When a recruiter says that a local college will accept them, and they can get paid money from the government, that may defy their previous expectations.
Later they may find that the government money is in the forms of loans, not grants.  Still, they hear this argument that sounds logical: after you graduate, you'll make more money, which will allow you to pay off the loan.
The most compelling reason to move forward with the enrollment may be this: not enrolling means continuing their life the way it was.  And, that didn't seem nearly as spectacular.  So, getting guaranteed money immediately, with some hope of having a good situation in the future, and some risk of troubles down the road, may seem more attractive than immediately being guaranteed to live the same troublesome life that a person has been experiencing.
Details, like the college's reputation for an education quality which is less than stellar, are a discomforting thought.  However, such concerns may not be significant enough to counter the immediate benefits of going along with the program by the recruiter.  After all, the organization does seem to be successful enough to pay its bills, and there is some sort of tie-in with the federal government that is helping to sponsor all this stuff, so there's enough faith in the overall system to begin having a better life right now.  If things don't work out, the plan is to simply live life and tackle challenges down the road when (or, actually, if) they come to fruition.

I suspect many people who enroll in predatory colleges don't know the college's reputation.

Wait, I probably should have seen this earlier but have not: Your government REALLY gives you a loan, knowing full well you are going to spend it on a predatory college whose degree is not worth ANYTHING? And you cannot sue your government for that?

There are lots of rubbish colleges in my country that offer "degrees". There is even a place called MIT which is the Manakau Institute of Technology, not to be confused with the top league place in the USA.
The pass rates are high in the rubbish colleges. In the US they would be probably called "diploma mills". The property developer "BOB JONES" wrote a book about it called "Degrees For Everyone". This book was intended as a bit of a joke, but in the future it will become a cornerstone for academic reform.
The real success rate of a college is the employment outcome ratio. The employment outcomes are terrible at the easy colleges and very good at the good colleges. In my country the labour market is relatively deregulated so if someone with a degree can't get a job in his or her field the pay is a disaster. In other words if you end up with a macjob in the service industry you may never pay off the loan and never own a house. People must think very carefully about whether it is worth it to take out a student loan. Unfortunately most young people don't think that way.

I will point out that employment outcome metrics can be very misleading, regardless of the university, but I overall agree with your comments.

This is a potentially useful comment, but I don't see how it answers the question.

@StephanKolassa what is this sub-SE position regarding "I am posting this as an answer because it is too long for a comment"?

@Mindwin Usually it's 'form this into an answer or shorten it into a comment'.  Long comments are interesting, but not really the intended purpose of SE.

@Zibbobz some subs are more tolerant of this kind of "answer" than others. That is why I asked.

@Mindwin Not sure about academia.se's policy - Maybe it would make a good Meta question?

Degrees For Everyone.  Heh.  If I say, "people with money are better off than people without it, so let's give everyone a million dollars to eliminate poverty," anyone with half a brain can instantly say "no, that won't work, because inflation."  But if I say "people with a college education are better off than people without it, so let's give everyone a degree to eliminate poverty," a lot less people catch on.

I think this answer is factually inaccurate - predatory colleges in the United States are often not "diploma mills". Because of predatory colleges' inability to fulfill promises of job placement, it's in their interest to get students to pay tuition but not complete their degree. One technique used to achieve this is schemes using government-backed financial aid to fund the student for most of their time at the predatory school, then leave them stuck without funding near the end.

@MasonWheeler That is because increasing the education of every single person is demonstrably a good thing. Would giving out a bachelors to everyone diminish its meaning? Yes. Would you still be able to use your more advanced skills? Also yes. It wouldn't eliminate poverty per se, but would leave everyone better off.

@kleineg Yeah, that sounds great in theory, right up until you run into real-world places with a significantly higher than average concentration of degrees, like Washington DC, which has seen actual instances of jobs such as "pizza delivery guy for Domino's.  Required qualifications: Master's degree or higher."  How much better off is the guy with a 4-year degree, once eduflation has taken its toll?

@MasonWheeler I live in washington dc and I did not know the ppl who deliver my pizza have masters degrees - not too surprised.  what is wrong with over educated pizza delivery guys?

@kleineg: Educating everyone may in deed have value. The question is whether that value exceeds the costs.

@JørgenFogh That is the question to ask. The answer may not be everyone going on to post high school education, and definitely not at colleges which do not provide the right skills. I wasn't making the point that absolutely everyone should get a Master's degree, I was saying that increasing the base education level provided to everyone would give people who don't want to work delivering pizza more opportunity to do something else. My inspiration for this comment is South Korea and Finland, which reap the benefit of the best pre college education systems, without needing predatory colleges.

These schools play into human psychology in two huge ways. One is the Lake Wobegon effect. Many people I know who went to "specialty schools" did so because "it's the easy way and in the end it doesn't matter because I not the stupid one. I am the smart and driven one who will go there and end up with a job / transfer anyways." Sure, some go there, learn some stuff, and then do just fine. The problem is that most people think they are better than the average person, and so "failure" statistics "don't apply to them," so they ignore the warning signs.
Secondly they do a lot of psychological pricing. Just like at 4-year colleges, most people aren't paying the full price. However, when they get a piece of paper saying "We gave you a scholarship! It's only $5,000 a year for you!" you think you're getting a great deal and why would you not go there? It's the same way that stores get people to buy things they don't need by telling them it's a good deal.
In the end, the people going to these schools think they're getting a great deal and any warning signs don't pertain to them. That makes it sounds like a good choice!
[Note: Many people I know were suckered into going to Community Colleges the same way. They went into it thinking it was a good deal and the dropout rates didn't apply to them. Sure, some did fine. The vast majority never graduated because they either couldn't get into the right classes or because nobody around them (even the teachers) cared. I think the moral is to be careful of any shortcuts.]

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

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


text:
When an academic researcher receives a gift funding from an industry partner, does the academic researcher's university take a cut?
When an academic researcher receives a gift funding from an industry partner, does the academic researcher's university take a cut, or does the academic researcher receives the entire gift funding?
If this is university and country dependent, I am mostly interested in the United States, and I'd be interested to have some survey (e.g., x % of universities % take a 20-30% commission, y % of universities % take no commission).

@Closevoters: according to What is our stance regarding questions asking for survey of institution’s regulations?, the question is on-topic. Closing the question would prevent future readers to add surveys as an answer. For example, someone who work in the industry with many university partners might have a good idea of how often universities take commissions for gift fundings. Buffy's answer shows that one can give a good answer to the question, stating factors that may come into account.
In response to comments:

the expression "taking a cut" is neutral. I'm not trying to imply anything in my question.
Definition of gift funding: see https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook/definitions-and-types-agreements/gift-vs-sponsored-projects-and-distinctions-other-forms-funding#anchor-1102 (mirror) "A gift, on the other hand, is defined as any item of value given to the University by a donor who expects nothing significant of value in return". A gift isn't a grant or sponsored research project.

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

Than can depend on a lot of things. The answer is often yes, occasionally no.
The question may depend, in part, on what the university contributes to you as a researcher, including office space, lab space, RA support, whatever. It might also depend on whether it is the university that has to manage the grant and verify to the funder that the funds are properly spent - accounting for the funds and seeing that any necessary taxes are paid.
Universities have policies about these things and you should find out what those policies are in your case, but the answer is more likely that you and the university share the proceeds. The university "cut" might be quite a lot, actually.
And the characterization of it as a "gift" might be questioned or contested.

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


text:
Getting grants at a teaching department while officially being considered an R2 institution
My department is focused on teaching. We teach 6 classes/year with heavy undergraduate mentoring. It actually feels like teaching 8 classes per year. I know that there are grants "designed" for teaching institutions (RUI at NSF, for example), but to be eligible my institution has to be officially a PUI (primarily undergraduate institution). By all measures my department would qualify (no masters/phd degree), but other departments in the university are research active, so we are an R2 institution.
Furthermore, the university has been heavily pushing to be considered an R1 institution. They are giving a lot of resources (time/money) to these research-active departments. People at the teaching-intensive departments are at a significantly disadvantage since our research is less intensive, so we never get the internal grants.
When I talk to the administration the conversation goes like this (not literally):

They: ..., we support your efforts to get grants.
Me: It is difficult to get grants due to the heavy teaching load.
They: People at (teaching department at another university) get grants.
Me: They qualify as a PUI.
They: That may help them, but if your proposal is good, it will get funded.
Me: To do good research I need the time to do it.
They: You can apply for internal grants to get seed funding/time.
Me: Most of my department applies, but we are not funded. It is difficult to
  get internal funding when competing with people in other areas that have more time for research.
They: Then you can apply for external funding, we support your efforts to get grants....

In summary, I work at an undergraduate department, but due to funding agencies rules, I am considered to be at a research intensive institution. Also, I have applied for grants, and colleagues at panels told me (in confidence) that other weaker proposals were funded because they got the PUI classification. My research was not considered strong enough (for a research intensive institution).
Has anyone had this experience?
How can I maximize my chances to get INTERNAL funding when competing with people that have much more time for research?
How can I maximize my chances to get EXTERNAL funding when competing with people that have much more time for research?

Start applying for faculty positions elsewhere.

A few thoughts -
One is that extramural funding is more about gaining prestige from your institution than actually resulting in a net revenue gain to your University.  See this article from the American Association of University Professors website for an explication of the ways in which the focus on extramural funding harms universities.
That said, if your tenure and promotion system is based on securing external funding and/or having time to do research, then you probably still have to play that game even if you know that it's harmful to the university in the long run.  One thing I'm thinking is psychological research about locus of control; if you believe that you are in control of your own success or failure it's been shown that you put more effort into and consequently have better performance than if you believe that others control what happens to you and that what you do doesn't matter.  It does sound like the system is rigged against folks in your situation, but nonetheless, you can still do your best to put together a competitive application - have folks read over your applications, look at other people's successful applications, etc.  Perhaps there's an office or staffperson on campus that helps with applications for external funding that could be a resource?
Finally, it sounds like there are some more systemic issues about courseloads and advising loads being too high.  These seem like great things to raise during faculty union meetings or to bring up to your Academic Senate representatives - you're probably not the only one feeling this way, and if you can open up a conversation with other faculty maybe there are some changes that can be made in the way things work.  Here's a case study about how faculty unions dealt with this in Ohio that might offer some inspiration for taking collective action.

This is one of those situations where there is strength in numbers. If you're the only one complaining, it's likely little will change. However, if you and your other colleagues in "teaching-intensive" departments collectively make noise about the issue, you're much more likely to force action on the part of the university.
In the meanwhile, you have to do the best you can with your given situation. Unless you were lied to about your expected teaching duties and other obligations, you know what you have to do for tenure. Making sure that it gets done should be your top priority while you're there (and possibly looking for other positions).


text:
Why are academics expected to pay out of their pockets for society memberships?
I had a discussion with a colleague about paying to become a member out of our own pockets. His argument is that we have to support a society if we care about it.
I don't understand the argument. The best way I can explain it is if we compare it to industry. You would not be asked to pay out of your own pocket to do the job you were hired for. Instead, your employer would have to pay it.
However, with respect to memberships in academia we are supposed to pay to do the job we were hired for (by the way, in my contract it says "give presentations in academic meetings"). It might be my experience in industry that makes me think this way, but again, I do not find it appropriate at all that we have to pay to do our jobs.
Why is there this discrepancy between academia and industry?
PS. I know in some cases one can use certain funds to pay for membership, I am not asking about that. I am asking that if you have the options of (1) not being a member or (2) pay it yourself, you are expected to pay it yourself.
Extra information: I asked around in my office and all (but me) frown upon academics that are not members of any society. In practice, this means (as far as I know, told this in confidence) that colleagues in my department do not consider you a committed professional and can use this as an excuse to minimize your achievements and maximize your weaknesses. One of the comments was similar to one of the answers here "if someone is not committed, then he/she should change careers, they have no place in academia"

In Germany and Austria I know for a fact that researchers are often covered by the institutional membership of their institute if that's offered by the society. Else, memberships often come with discounts on conference fees that can be used to get reimbursed for society membership by your university. I would guess the same applies to other European countries.

I agree completely with you, for what it's worth.

Just curious, in your discipline, is it necessary to be a member of a society in order to "give presentations in academic meetings"?  The major societies in my discipline do organize meetings, but one is not required to be a member in order to present at those meetings (though non-members pay a higher registration fee).  There are also many important conferences which are not organized by any society.

@NateEldredge In my area, the societies often have the cunning scheme that the registration discount for members is greater than the cost to join!

Nothing in my job requires me to be a member of any society so, in my field, at least, your question is based on a false premise. Also, is it normal for companies to pay professional society membership fees for their employees? My assumption is no.

"is it normal for companies to pay professional society membership fees for their employees?" If it is to do their job, then experience says yes.
"s it necessary to be a member of a society in order to "give presentations in academic meetings"?"  No, but can make the cost of registration lower and so most of my colleagues become members to save the department money (not their own money). Also see my last edit in my question.

I would also like to comment that the policy "employer pays for all things necessary for employee to do their job" is by no means universal in the private sector.  As a simple example, a sales firm might require its employees to dress elegantly, but would likely not pay for those elegant clothes.

I once joined a society (ACM or IEEE, I forget which) because the membership fee was less than the member discount for a registration fee at a conference I was going to. I thought I was being clever by saving money, but instead my university refused to reimburse the membership fee and I ended up worse off. That's a good example of this being an illogical policy; next time I won't try saving money.

"PS. I know in some cases one can use certain funds to pay for membership, I am not asking about that. I am asking that if you have the options of (1) not being a member or (2) pay it yourself, you are expected to pay it yourself." This is particularly nonsensical. "I assert this thing is true, I do not want to hear things counter to this assertion" is...not productive.

First of all, I believe the premise of your question is largely incorrect (and I know from your disclaimer that you are "not asking about that" but will take the liberty of addressing that anyway). At my university, researchers can use their research funds to pay for membership in academic societies, and my perception is that this is the norm in the United States. So, to the extent that it's not the case at your institution, my feeling is that that is out of line with the norm, so perhaps there is indeed no good reason for it and you should lobby to get this rule changed.
Second, even if it is the case that you cannot charge this expense to your research funds, the assertion that "academics are expected to pay out of their pockets for memberships in academic societies" still sounds highly questionable to me. What does "expected" here mean? I was not a member of any academic society until last year, and nonetheless managed to become a full professor and department chair at a respected university. So I maintain that no harm will come to your career if you ignore this so-called "expectation". Sure, it might be nice to be a member of a society and can come with various small benefits, but if you don't feel like paying for it, you'll be fine.
Third, even if it is the case that becoming a member of an academic society in your discipline is somehow a professional necessity, and that the only way to do that is to pay for it out of your personal money, I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable (nor is it entirely true that things aren't like that in industry - lawyers have to pay annual bar fees, for example, not all of which are covered by their employers). Your interpretation that this means "we are supposed to pay to do the job we were hired for" seems to me like a very narrow-minded view of what life in academia is about. Sure, it is a job and we are paid a salary for it; at the same time, being a researcher is much more than a job - it is a vocation, and that is why researchers are notoriously bad at separating their personal lives and their professional lives: most normal "workers" don't work late nights and weekends (not to mention holidays and family vacations) and don't spend a large proportion of their lives traveling for work, including moving repeatedly across large geographical distances before landing their first permanent job.
In fact, to be honest, as an academic, I feel like I can't draw a precise line separating my "job" from my "personal life". When I read a math book or article at the beach or swimming pool, am I "working"? When I think about a research problem while driving or talk about math with a friend over dinner, am I "working"? I honestly don't know. And that's a good thing. It means that I am doing something that makes me happy. How many other "workers" can say that? Too few, sadly. So let the industry people have their employers pay for them to do the "duties" that are "written in their contract", is what I say. If you are passionate about your work and being a member of a society is something that interests you enough, you would not find it burdensome having to pay a small amount for it. And if not, well, either switch careers, or just forego the society membership, and all will be well.

I'm not so sure about your perception of the "norms".  At my institution (R2), faculty aren't by default allocated any general-purpose "research funds".  There are internal funds available for travel and various other specific purposes, either automatically or by competitive application, and of course one can apply for external grants. But I don't think professional society dues are allowed by any of these.  I wonder if there is any broader data on this.

As for "no good reason" for this policy, I think the university would cite what they see as the most compelling of reasons: it costs money which they don't have, can't afford, would have to cut other benefits or services to compensate, etc, etc.

@NateEldredge sure, lack of money is obviously a valid reason. I guess I assumed that since lack of money is a generic answer to many questions of the type "why isn't my employer enabling me to do X, which I need to do in order to do my job?", OP wouldn't be asking the question if that were the reason in his institution's case. But anyway, good point.

@NateEldredge Researchers at my institution get a small amount of unrestricted money from every funded grant proposal ("indirect cost recovery" or "ICR") .  That's what we use to pay professional society dues; if I don't have ICR money, I pay from my own pocket.  Junior professors can also use startup funds, but that's just another species of ICR.  Using direct grant money would violate funding agency policy.

"the assertion that "academics are expected to pay out of their pockets for memberships in academic societies" still sounds highly questionable to me": As I said, in my office and all (but me) frown upon academics that are not members of any society. One of the effects (as far as I know) is that tenure committees make it more difficult to attain tenure or promotions. I guess it is similar to industry when they sometimes just say "not a team player" as a generic way to decrease chances of promotion. Also, I did not ask about your university, I know that some fortunate individuals can use funds.

@Roger I'm sorry for expressing skepticism about your claim, but I can't really help thinking that. It's true academia is a big place and I'm sure you have some good grounds to think that being a member of a society is important, but somehow it still seems difficult for me to accept that your failing to become a member will somehow sabotage your career. It may be true, and ultimately only you have full information about your situation and can decide what to do based on it, but I gave my opinion for what it's worth, based on my experience with one part of academia. Well, good luck in any case.

As for answering something you did not ask about... well, I was trying to write a full answer that would be maximally helpful to you and to others with similar concerns. Hope you found at least parts of it useful.

@Roger I don't know what your field is, but a lot of the people here seem to be mathematicians, and no one cares if you are not a member of the AMS, MAA, etc. I have heard myself that professional membership is important in other fields, so don't put too much stock in some of the comments here.

@ElizabethHenning I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it to come across this way, but a literal reading of what you wrote parses as "don't listen to them, they're just mathematicians". Would you care to clarify your remark? I don't mind if someone wants to say I'm talking nonsense, but dismissing what I say because I'm a mathematician seems rather... illogical. Note that the question did not ask about a specific discipline, and for all we know OP may be a mathematician as well, so a math-centered answer is as valid as any other.

@DanRomik You must know that what is true in R1 mathematics departments is very often not true in the complement of R1 mathematics departments. My comment was only intended to provide that missing qualifier, precisely because the OP did not state that they were a mathematician.

You would not be asked to pay out of your own pocket to do the job you were hired for. Instead, your employer would have to pay it. Oh, really?

A few perspectives on this question, from someone who has had one society membership paid for by their university, and several not:

You would not be asked to pay out of your own pocket to do the job you
  were hired for. Instead, your employer would have to pay it.

First, I know a number of people in industry who end up paying out of pocket (especially if we consider the time value of money) for learning things important to their job.
Second, rare is the society membership that is required to do your job. I have only published in a single journal that required an author on the publication to be a member of the society, and generally speaking, I also haven't had to be a member to attend meetings, present work, etc. - though it's often cheaper than registering as a non-member.

However, with respect to memberships in academia we are supposed to
  pay to do the job we were hired for (by the way, in my contract it
  says "give presentations in academic meetings").

As noted above, society memberships are neither necessary nor sufficient for you to fulfill this clause in your contact.

PS. I know in some cases one can use certain funds to pay for
  membership, I am not asking about that. I am asking that if you have
  the options of (1) not being a member or (2) pay it yourself, you are
  expected to pay it yourself.

You made a general argument, but don't want to hear about the counters to your general argument?
I've used both startup and grant funding to pay for society memberships.
There are other reasons that I can come up with off the top of my head for why this isn't done (often):

For many faculty, even those with unallocated money, society memberships may fall in that category of "annoying, but not worth spending my limited grant funding on."
It is very hard to link society membership to a particular tangible work product, save for rare cases. My membership in SIAM, for example, has done exactly nothing for my career, and is tied to no products, yet I still find it reasonably valuable. That's hard to put into a grant, and hard for a university to justify spending.
There's no cap on it. There are always societies to join. If you come to a university and say "I need a PCR machine to do my work" you buy the machine (and perhaps a service agreement) and you're done. "I need to join some number of societies" isn't capped. Is that number one? Three? Fifteen? Fifty?
Society memberships follow people, not positions. For three months, I was between jobs - yet I was still a member of the Society for Epidemiological Research. If I quit my job tomorrow, I will still be a member of one of their committees. The same is true if I switched jobs.

In my field, it is not required to be a member of any society. So it is not expected that one would pay for that. Personally, I do not pay for any memberships. But, If wanted to, I would use my research funding (permitted in many universities). And otherwise, if I would not have enough funding, I would just pay it with my own money, and it would not be much of a problem. In my field, membership are cheap for students (about 50 $ USD). And for professors, we typically have a high enough salary that paying a membership is not much of a problem even if we would pay from our own pocket. If you really like research, you may not mind paying a little bit from your own pocket, especially if you don't have enough funding and you think it could help you.


text:
Why are there so many awards in academia in the US compared with academia in France?
I spent a bit of time in France and in the USA. I observed that there are many more awards given to students and academics in the US than there are in France. Is that observation correct, and if so what accounts for it?

Examples:
Grade awards in the US:

University of Chicago Student Marshal
Dean’s List

Student research awards in the US:

Charles W. and Jennifer C. Johnson Prize
Jin Au Kong Thesis Award
George M. Sprowls PhD thesis award
William A. Martin Memorial Master's Thesis Award

Teaching awards in the US:

MIT Inspirational Teacher Award
Everett Moore Baker Memorial Award
Gordon Y Billard Award
Graduate Student Council Teaching Awards

I am unclear what you're asking. Would you please clarify what you mean by "awards"? Nobel prize is of course an award. Do you consider scholarship an award? What other things would you consider awards?

@scaaahu Teaching awards, research awards, grade awards, leadership awards, etc.. Of course not considering funding-related awards as no such issue of funding in France. Not considering international awards either.

@scaaahu Is it clear now?

Well, there are many more people in the US...

@DavidKetcheson Sure but even looking at award per individual the rate is seems much higher in the US.

This seems to be biased. You're more likely to look at CVs of people who are more successful. Also, people who are less successful are probably less likely to be flooding the internet with their CV.

@AustinHenley Why would it affect the US more than France?

@FranckDernoncourt Maybe it doesn't. Or maybe because of cultural differences, people in France put their CV out in the wild even when it isn't impressive? Who knows.

@FranckDernoncourt Another possibility is that the incentive system in France puts less emphasis on these awards so researchers don't put as much effort into trying to win them (many awards require someone to nominate you or write letters of rec for you).

I have half french kids and I have spent a lot of my life in France and in the Midwest.  The answer is easy - culture.
Americans love recognizing everything.  Participation awards, so many awards that anyone that is pretty good at something will surely get one.  My 4th grader at the time got a ribbon for 4th place in a race and his French grandmother said, "Why?"  She didn't even understand it.
In France if you win something you are really at the top of your game and its a big deal.  They generally don't placate to keeping self-esteem high, even with children.   Things are more regulated, committees generally mean something and there isn't a lot of duplication.  Now I see this slowly changing in France over the years and it becoming more westernized.
Your answer is just, different culture.  England is a bit the same as America except they seem to have accreditation companies and societies that also allow you to "pay" for an award.

I never knew it was possible to refer to Western Europe becoming "more westernized". ;-)

@DavidKetcheson well, USA and UK are at the west of France (or a very long way to the east).

@DavidKetcheson - You win the good observation award!

In the US, its common to try and award as many participants as possible.  This trend hasn't gone unnoticed in the US either.
Usually this trend is blamed on one of two things - raising self-esteem of the participant, and need to show achievement to be accepted into a prestigious school or college.
In America, its pretty common for families to enroll their young children (middle school and younger) into summer sports teams.  As these teams are meant more as a family bonding experience, several hand out participation and superlative trophies to encourage families to sign up next summer.
The other recent I hear less often is that most universities expect to see extra-curricular activities, and winning an award is better than simply participating.  Therefore parents may expect (or demand) their child be awarded in some way.  Sports and other clubs have responded by simply adding more awards.


text:
Lack of letter of recommendation due to long-term research experience
I only have 2 research experiences, one of which lasted more than a year and is starting to look very promising for high impact factor publication (I'll be the second author though, and it's not likely to be published by the time of application). The other is with an highly esteemed professor from the U.S. who's quite happy with my 2-month research internship in his lab. Both are willing to put in some good words for me, but that's all I got, so I need a "did well in class" letter of recommendation which will probably be worth nothing. Will this hurt a lot to my graduate application? (I'm an international student)

If you have two strong letters of recommendation for research work, that's already quite good.  I would think that "this person is a strong student" letter filling out the set will be just fine---after all, somebody has to testify that you're good outside of the lab as well!

One of my research adviser doesn't really have much experience in writing letters of recommendation (this is his third or something), and have no connections in the schools I'm applying for, plus the research paper won't be published in time so I don't really have a publication. Would the letter of recommendation from him still be considered strong?

@arax - It's fine.  Don't confuse an application for a PhD program with an application for a postdoc.  ---  Regarding the inexperienced letter writer -- if he's feeling unsure of himself, he can get some mentoring in the letter writing from a more senior person (perhaps the person you've been working with for two months).  ---  Don't worry about the lack of connection with the schools you're applying for.  I have seen how important that is in some countries, but it doesn't matter in the U.S.

All of your fellow students are in the same boat: almost nobody has more than 2 successful research experiences (and many have fewer). You don't have to have a stellar file when applying -- it just needs to be as good or better than that of all of the other candidate, most of whom will mostly have "did well in class" letters.
In other words: you're ahead of the curve. Nothing to worry about.

Thanks! I've been browsing gradcafe lately, and it seems that many people there can get 3 or even more strong letter of recommendations from influential scientists that anything less than two pages can be a concern. Is that merely sample bias?

@arax Yes, it is.

Indeed. I've looked through hundreds of grad school applications. That is not the norm.


text:
Is it necessary to add email address to paper?
Short and simple question. Am I allowed to not include my email at a publication?
On a related note, what should I  do if I don't have an e-mail address, or have an e-mail address at my university which will expire when I leave the university?

Get a gmail or yahoo or whatever free address you can and use that.

Should you? Of course. Is it necessary? Only the guide for authors of the journal can answer that.

Are you the only author of the paper, or are you asking whether it is ok for some of the authors not to provide an e-mail address?

I wonder if I'm the only one who always googles for an author's homepage and copies the mail address from there when asking a question. Only very seldomly, researchers write gmail addresses on papers (as it looks unprofessional to some people), and other addresses can expire. Also, Alumni addresses are often not given to everyone (e.g.,  postdocs). For postdocs, professional e-mail addresses are almost guaranteed to have expired after max .two years. I know of a case where at the time of publishing the paper, the mail address already expired and the server would just silently eat the mail.

@O.R.Mapper I ask whether it's ok not to include an e-mail address(no matter if you are the only author or co-author). As I said, if I make a publication as a graduate student my academic address, in my uni, will expire after a year so nobody will be able to contact me. Also I think getting a gmail or a free address looks completely unprofessional.

@Nickolas: Ok, I have added an answer to explain my point of view, within which I show why I think being the only author or being only one of several authors completely changes the answer.

I think many journals have explicit policies about this.

You should put your email on your paper.  Not doing so means people who want to contact you can't, and it's obnoxious, non-collegial, and extremely unusual in science.
As for what address to use, I see two main paths: "permanent" and "traceable":
For the "permanent" path: many universities have a permanent alumni email address, which you can set up while still there and which is an excellent choice for long-term usage.  If you don't have access to such, you can get a free address (Gmail is a good "professional" choice, but others can be as well; don't use AOL, Hotmail, or others with a poor reputation).  The advantage of this approach is that your address need never change; the disadvantage is that you may not be using an email associated with your primary affiliation.
For the "traceable" path: it is worth recognizing that even when you have a "permanent" position, such as a tenured faculty post, that it may not be permanent.  People relocate away from long-term jobs for all sorts of reasons, and an email address thought to be forever is not.  Everybody who wants to contact you will understand this.  Thus, rather than use Gmail, you might instead just make sure you always maintain an easily identifiable web presence that includes information about your former affiliations and papers.  Thus, when somebody searches for you, they can easily link you and your paper, even if your email has changed.

'Gmail is a good "professional" choice, but others can be as well; don't use AOL, Hotmail, or others with a poor reputation' - YMMV, I don't see much of a difference in "reputation" between the various free e-mail services such as Hotmail, GMail, or Yahoo, despite GMail currently arguably being more "fashionable" to have.

In my circles, using a Gmail address in a professional context if the definition of dubious.

@O.R.Mapper I might well be out-of-date in my opinions about different free email services, having gotten on Gmail back when it required an invitation and AOL was still recruiting by (physical) junk-mail.

"Not doing so means people who want to contact you can't": That's not really true, at least not generally. Especially for older papers, you will often have to lookup the current email address somewhere anyways.

+1, but "and extremely unusual in science" is unfortunately not true.  I had plenty of trouble trying to track down authors because of this.  Having a website is a good suggestion but googling up someone with a name like "W Zhang" can be quite a challenge ...  I really wish people would just always put a permanent address (like Gmail).  It's a pity and not very reasonable that some consider Gmail unprofessional, as evidenced by the comments above.

I strongly disagree. An out-of-date email address is obnoxious, since people waste their time trying to send mail to it. If I'm lucky, they'll get a bounce; if I'm unlucky, they won't and they'll think that I'm the obnoxious one for not replying. In contrast, if there's no email address on a paper, people can easily search for an address and will most likely get the current one. In particular, early-career researchers are likely to have their email address change every couple of years and many universities refuse to forward mail for former staff/students.

@Szabolcs Gmail is permanent? How do you know? Do you have a contract with Google that says they will continue to provide you with some service for X amount of time? Or are you just assuming that Google is huge so will last for ever? You mean like CompuServe and Alta Vista and Geocities?

@DavidRicherby No need to twist words.  Sure, nothing is permanent, we might be hit by an asteroid next year and human civilization will come to an end.  But Gmail (and similar big providers) come close to the most permanent address one can easily get today.  Certainly more permanent than an institutional address.

@Szabolcs I'm not twisting words. Google ceasing to provide email service for free to anyone who wants it is considerably more likely than an asteroid wiping out mankind in the next year. For example, around a year ago, it looked likely that Gmail might cease to be available in Russia because of a new law there requiring Russian users' data to be held on servers within Russia. Gmail is no longer available in China.

@Szabolcs Even more likely is Google changing their terms and conditions in a way that you find unacceptable, causing you to close your account.

"it's obnoxious, non-collegial, and extremely unusual in science." I totally disagree, and any search engine allows to find the email address of someone that wants it to be found. Putting email addresses everywhere is one of the reason we are deeply buried into piles of emails.

@Szabolcs I'll trust that my university will be around for longer than Google. Of course, not all won't forward mail, sadly.

@DavidRicherby Searching may not be very helpful if, for instance, the target homepage is not available in a language you speak, or their name is very common, or the person has changed their name (e.g. due to marriage), or they don't have an academic website (anymore).

Whether you can choose not to include your email address in your paper depends on the journal. Some journals make it mandatory for the authors to include their e-mail addresses, while others do not mention anything about email addresses in their guidelines. Read the journal guidelines carefully; you can choose to not include your email address if the journal does not have any problem with it.
Having said that, I would say that you should provide some other detail that will allow readers to contact you. This is required for two reasons: first, to establish your credibility, and second, to be available to readers if they wish to contact you for some clarification. I can understand your concern that the university email is not permanent. However, you can definitely use a personal  email address (although an institutional email looks more professional), or provide the link to your website or any other webpage that will provide your updated contact information.

I was hoping that the credibility of my work came from its quality, rather from what comes after the at-sign in my email address...

The credibility of course does come from the quality of your work, but as an author, giving your contact details indicates that you are taking complete responsibility for your work and are willing to help in case people have any questions about it or issues with it.

"giving your contact details indicates that you are taking complete responsibility for your work" I always thought that writing my name at the top of the paper indicated that. Who else could possibly be responsible for it? Was nobody responsible for their work before email came along?

Even before the email was popular, authors did provide contact details I think, and people could contact them by post if required. You can provide some other contact detail, if not your email, but I would think it a part of my responsibility as an author to be available to answer any questions or doubts that come up with regard to my work.

Yes, I've never seen an academic paper that didn't list the authors' affiliations.

If you are the only author, providing an e-mail address (or at least another form of contacting you) is highly adviseable, as explained by several of the other answers.
If you are not the only author, and some of the other authors can provide a more permanent e-mail address, then it depends on the conference or journal whether you can skip providing your e-mail address. If the conference or journal allows so, you do not need to provide an e-mail address, as the other authors already provide some contact information that is probably more reliable/durable than your own address. Otherwise, in the worst case, future readers might, of all of the indicated addresses, pick yours, with either of the following results:

If you manage to convince someone to prolong it, for one reason or another you might not check it any longer (e.g. no convenient forwarding feature) and the reader will not get a quick response.
If your address is deleted, the reader will get back an error message (which, IMHO, is worse than implicitly having them write to a more reliable address in the first place by not listing an address that is known to expire soon) or, even worse, no indication that something was wrong, even though no-one will ever receive the e-mail.
If you set up an extra address specifically for the papers, once again you might end up not checking it (unless it actually is your personal address, and at least I personally can very well understand if you would not want to divulge that in any publicly accessible place like a paper, same as you possibly wouldn't publish your home address).

The main reason I don't like putting my email address on the paper is because my inbox becomes rapidly flooded with requests to become a reviewer for some vanity press or international journal or an endless list of requests to publish in journals that are not PubMed indexed or charge money to submit.
What's more, I would prefer not to put my institution on their either, particularly if the work was not supported by my institution or reflects controversial views not sponsored by my employer. I haven't found a way around that, though.


text:
Why did UK quit Erasmus?
Why did the UK throw away something that has been one of their most valuable assets in higher education?
It is a bit like a company that has successfully manufactured items which generated the lion's share of their sales for a very long time, and now saying "despite the massive hit to our income, we can somehow successfully survive without that product". No doubt that the EU are now going to retaliate by blocking UK from related schemes, e.g. Horizon Research Grants...
Context: Erasmus+, details about UK participation in Erasmus

While I agree that Brexit isn't beneficial for science (or much of anything for that matter), this feels more like a rant than a question.

What are "Horizon Research Grants"? Horizon 2020 research grants?

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

Eramus+ is an EU-funded program. Non-EU countries can join, but need an agreement with the EU. Since the UK is no longer part of the EU, and they've yet to conclude an agreement with the EU, they can't participate anymore.

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

Participation in Erasmus probably requires accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.  See Wikipedia for an example of a ECJ decision involving Erasmus.  Google Search shows more.
The United Kingdom government has pretty much ruled out any program involving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.  For example, see Brexit and the European Court of Justice or many statements by leading politicians in the news over the past years.
Therefore, barring a change in government policy, United Kingdom participation in the Erasmus programme is unlikely under the present circumstances.  It's not impossible, but it would require some degree of political backpedaling on an issue that is not very high on the priorities of the the UK Conservative party or Brexit-voting electoral base, so I wouldn't expect the UK to rejoin Erasmus any time soon.

"Participation in Erasmus requires accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice." Do you have a source for this? (I am not contesting the claim, I am simply looking for a source.)

@Szabolcs I cited a source for a ECJ ruling with implications for Erasmus and a Google Search for more.  Are such examples insufficient as a source?  I suppose I could dive into the treaty texts for Erasmus where it may be stated explicitly.

I upvoted your answer, because I suspect that there might be a political linkage between accepting the jurisprudence of the CJEU and continued participation in ERASMUS and other EU programmes. I don't think, however, that there is any technical or automatic "requirement" to accept CJEU jurisprudence to participate in ERASMUS. By the way, the linked Wikipedia paragraph is quite vague and unclear. I couldn't find the ruling it seems to refer to and I didn't understand from the description what the ruling was about.

@gerrit Basically what the comment above says: the linked section doesn't really imply that a blanket acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction is required.

I have added the word "probably" before "requires" to make that statement a bit less strong.

For a motivation as to why this might be desirable to some the explanation is not income but profits (setting aside the political reasons too, which are likely strong with regard to the ECJ).  Overseas students generate more profit for many universities than domestic ones as they pay higher fees.  Erasmus likely makes EU students more equivalent to domestic students as part of the general goal of treating all citizens of member states equally no matter the state they are in.
So leaving Erasmus may reduce the number of EU students that choose to attend UK universities as the requirements and paperwork may be more burdensome. This is bad for academic exchange. However, this may make it easier for UK universities to charge EU students higher fees than they do presently, which may further reduce the number coming, which is again bad for academic exchange.  The upside is that a university may get more profit per-student. Ultimately a university needs funding.
Now whether the majority of universties feel this is a good business move or not I cannot say.  It could simply be that the people negotiating simply see more profit as a good thing that is likely to counter anything else.

As a comparison, some UK universities have 'J-1 Visa' type exchanges with their counterparts in USA; I believe that many California exchanges operate under this program. What it involves is that each student at their original university pays the whole year tuition fees as they normally would had there been no exchange, and the students just simply 'exchange places' for that year. It remains to be seen whether the UK pursues this type of approach with the EU.


text:
Can a tenure decision be overturned a month before the decision letter is sent to faculty?
I am a grad student with an untenured faculty. Her tenure dossier was discussed last year and I have heard through the grapevine that she may be denied tenure the primary reasons being her lack of productivity (one article published, one in review at the time of ptc meeting in fall now accepted, 2 preprints both currently in review but not at the time of ptc meeting, all in 7 years) and not having graduated a student.
She threw me under the bus with a months notice that I absolutely had to defend by the year end, notwithstanding that my paper isn’t published and I can’t move on without it to any postdoctoral positions. She is now demanding that my paper ‘absolutely has to be accepted’ within 4 months (first round of reviews with major revision decision received in mid December) again for her tenure. This is nearly impossible given my experiments.
I am finding it very hard to find any sympathy for her because of her generally irresponsible behavior toward me since it is extremely unlikely she wasn’t aware of these tenure expectations before, and because she got a year of tenure extension because of the pandemic while I slaved in lab through it regardless.
My questions are:

if she is going to be denied tenure is even a last minute paper acceptance going to change the decision? I am concerned if we send out a less than thorough revised paper we will be rejected which will also have very negative consequences for me.
is it not considered her responsibility to see her student’s papers through to publication since I have killed myself for it over six and a half years? Does student outcome ever factor in making tenure decisions?

I will point out that you certainly want to graduate as soon as possible if your professor does not get tenure. You have more than a little interest in getting that paper published and your PhD in hand.

There seems to be a lot of side-information and it makes your question seem more like a rant than an actual question. I had trouble finding anything representing your title question in the body of your question. Can you take a step back and try to clarify what it is you are actually asking? It seems like you're asking if a paper published late in the tenure process can influence tenure; that does not sound like "overturning" anything to me.

@JonCuster That certainly depends on the exact circumstances, including questions of whether the current supervisor could continue the supervision despite being denied tenure, and/or whether another faculty member could take over the supervisor role.

@lighthousekeeper - sure, but neither situation will be ideal - the current supervisor will be busy finding someplace else, and another faculty member will have a start-up cost associated with bringing them up to speed. Likely better to get going while the going is good...

@JonCuster Rushing the completion of a PhD thesis is surely also not ideal. It's a real trade-off where the best solution depends on the exact circumstances.

@lighthousekeeper - I think the language used in the question already indicates the situation is far from ideal, even should the professor get tenure (or even without there being a tenure decision period).

Yes I agree about my post sounding like a rant perhaps because I feel distressed and I’m sorry about including perhaps irrelevant details. My question indeed was if a paper is accepted a month before tenure decisions are communicated would it help my advisor given this is a justification she is using to rush my paper. The answers seem to agree with what I instinctively feel, that it is unlikely. My best course of action perhaps is to just complete and leave asap. Thank you all for your time and responses!

A related question though what are my chances of landing a postdoc if it is known that my advisor was denied tenure if she is? Do potential postdoc advisors factor this in when judging applicants?

The request that you defend and submit a paper may be for your benefit.  Things can move awfully fast following a negative tenure outcome, and having a student finish up may be the best thing for a student looking in the face of a sudden lab closure and no advisor

There are many questions in your post, so let me answer just the one that your title is about. I'm going to take your "grapevine" as truth, though as others have pointed out, the grapevine is rarely reliable. With that, let's get to it:
No, getting a single paper published is not going to change anything, especially if it is late in the game.[1] This is particularly true if the department (and at this time of year) the dean have already made their decisions and written their letters that accompany the file as it makes its way upward in the university. I cannot imagine a situation where a department would go back on its decision, retract the letter, and write a new one that states the opposite just because a single paper has been published after the original letter was written. Tenure decisions are generally not made on the basis of a single paper, but based on the entirety of the evidence. In other words, if someone has not been productive over the course of six years, then that is the evidence, and a single paper is not going to change the general pattern.
As a consequence, your adviser is clinging to straws believing that that paper is going to make a difference. That may be understandable from a human perspective, but the straw is not going to keep her afloat.
Of course, all of that puts you into an awkward spot. Others are already commenting on that part of your post.

[1] The usual caveat applies: Tens or hundreds of thousands of people have over the years gone through the tenure process. Surely there are cases where a single paper, accepted late in the process, made a difference. But just because it has happened does not mean that one should take into account as something that might apply to the current case.

if she is going to be denied tenure is even a last minute paper acceptance going to change the decision?

That is exceedingly unlikely.  One article in seven years is a huge problem.  Only an extraordinary achievement can fix that.  Details vary by university and discipline.

Does student outcome ever factor in making tenure decisions?

Yes.

First, don't believe the grapevine. It may be accurate or not. The decision will be made by the normal faculty rules and I doubt that you would have much impact, especially via a submitted paper that you don't think is ready.
You are in a tough situation. I suggest that you talk to the administration (head, dean) about what your options are. Her tenure decision ideally shouldn't impact your graduation, but only they can say. You might require a "fill in" supervisor to get over the hump and the head/dean might be able to make that happen.
This is one reason that I always suggest students work with tenured faculty for dissertations so that this sort of thing won't occur. Too late for you now, of course, but the university has an obligation to provide you a path.
Ask the head about the effect of a paper and about the effect of a plea. Often, BTW, faculty who fail to obtain tenure get one more year so that they can get other employment. Probably not universal, but common. So, you may wind up OK if you can finish in a year without switching advisors.
I hate to suggest putting a guilt trip on the head, but...
You aren't responsible for the plight of your advisor and shouldn't suffer because of it.
When you discuss things with the head, if you can, make the conversation about your needs, not your advisor's failings as you see them.

1 for You aren't responsible for the plight of your advisor and shouldn't suffer because of it.

+1 for "talk to administration and/or dean about options." I have friends who had to scramble when their advisor left academia. It's a pain, do whatever you can to prepare for it.

Trying my best to navigate this and have received a lot of helpful advice from this community so far. Then again I am hoping she doesn’t actually get denied tenure.

I am aware of at least two situations where negative tenure votes were successfully appealed at a high-ranking R1. I shared an office with the lab members in one case and they pushed hard to get all papers that were in process as far along as possible. This did seem to make a difference and the faculty member was granted tenure.
One additional note: the case I am referring to was also one where there was at least one year of stop the clock granted. (I believe there was part of the appeal related to this- some of the negative voters were not accounting for this.) A stop the clock does not imply that no work should have been happening. (You seem to think it was unfair that you worked during this times) It implies that the work is not at a full level and a 7 year time frame should be treated as a 6-year one for judging productivity.

Our case is a bit more complicated by the possibility of a grant renewal being denied too, and that the professor hasn’t been able to recruit many students we are at the end of seven years a three person one PI lab (several students have rotated close to 17 of which 2 joined). Could these be mitigating factors that can raise the chances of denial after reappeal too?

I really can’t speak to those factors. In the case I am thinking of they were not factors. The faculty member was beloved by students and lab members. No difficulty recruiting students. No difficulty getting grants, although always as part of a team of PIs and so there were some people who wanted to see solo PI grants.


text:
Label to report percentage of recurrent/new authors in conference submissions
We would like to report some stats on the submissions for a specific conference, but we are unsure whether similar statistics have been reported elsewhere, and if we should consequently adopt an existing label.
More specifically, we are interested in reporting the (i) % of submissions with all authors being recurrent; (ii) % of submissions with at least one recurring and one new author; (iii) % of submissions with all new authors. Recurrent authors denote those who have submitted to the conference for > 1 year. The idea is to learn e.g. whether recurrent authors have brought new ones to the conference.
I've been looking into reports of the CHI and AAAI conference series but found nothing related. Any pointers would be appreciated!

I don't think you need to obsess over this.

If you don't like "new" then maybe "first-time authors" would work? I've seen a number of conferences provide guidance to "first-time attendees".

@Anyon Perhaps "submitters"? "First-time author" would imply it's their first conference poster, which is usually not the case.

@AzorAhai--hehim I guess it could be specified further, e.g. "First-time FC paper author", where FC=Fancy Conference. "Submitter" seems awkward to me, since I'd interpret submitter to be the person actually submitting the paper (so each paper has exactly one submitter, but potentially multiple authors). Maybe the interpretation would be field-dependent though.

@Anyon Fair point. I think "new FC authors" works fine

Thanks - good points indeed! @Buffy: I won't worry too much, but I don't want to overlook the obvious.


text:
What is a suitable job title for someone responsible for creating large data sets?
I write and record hundreds of sentences and format them in a way so they're ready to be fed into an AI model used in a chat bot. What job title would you consider this to be?

Welcome to Academia SE. Please [edit] your question to elaborate why you want to know this. Otherwise it is very difficult for us to help you. Moreover, your question does not appear to be related to academia, so please beware that it may be off-topic here.

"Data entry clerk"

Have you checked your contract for this information?

Who do you want to tell/impress with the Job title?

I think you are a "data curator."
This paper indicates that US participants consider a data curator as one overseeing the entire data management cycle, while their European/Australian counterparts have a narrower view focused on technical aspects of archiving in the final stages of the data cycle.
Below is an excerpt:

The use of the term data curator and its broad understanding was quite prevalent among the US professionals, while Australian and European participants made a clear distinction between data curators and data managers and did not use the terms interchangeably.
Participant P stated: "Data manager is for the first part of the data life cycle and data curator is in the last part of it. The data curator reviews, migrates, and enhances data and metadata, whereas the data manager helps with data collection, metadata standards, and creating coherent and authentic data sets (that ideally subsequently need less curation). A data curator rather works with the final data objects, to optimize them to a final version that can’t be manipulated anymore after that.

+1. To me, at least, "data curator" implies that at least a bit of scientific judgment and research expertise was used. In contrast, a researcher could hire someone to do the "grunt work" of transcribing and recording (without knowing anything about the research goals); I might call this person a "lab assistant" or "clerk" or "transcriptionist" or something along those lines.


text:
When can a museum be considered an academic institution?
I must admit that although I deeply believe museums, no matter how small, play a very important role in almost any sort of research, proving their scientific character can be sometimes quite awkward. Is there any set of fixed criteria that would allow a museum to be considered as an academic institution if met?

Hi Wydawnictwo Kle! I'm afraid I don't understand your question, as there is no single definition of “academic institution”. Looking at the definitions of academic in a dictionary, many of them could apply to some museums as well: “relating to education and scholarship”, for example (New Oxford American Dictionary). I'll add that many large museums have both teaching and research activities, and would definitely qualify as academic institutions in my view.

Thanks for your reply, lack of clear definition of what is an "academic institution" is one of the reasons of my question. Another, a possible situation when museums are explicitly treated as non-academic almost by definition (what definition?) which excludes their personnel  from certain grants, privileges, government funding etc.

There is no single definition. Grants and other funding sources clearly specify (sometimes in fine print) what institutions are eligible. “Academic institution” is a vague term, and not one used in legal documents. Asking for a precise definition of a vague term is not constructive. If you want to ask “Can museum employees apply to NSF grants, and under what conditions?”, that would be a valid question.

If one takes into consideration that the institutions that are considered "academic" are usually evaluated in terms of a) scientific work produced by their staff and b) postgraduate educational programs (but only if they do have such programs), I would say that "scientific work from staff members" is what would count as a criterion.

The OED definition of academic

Of, relating to, or characteristic of an educational institution or
  environment; concerned with the pursuit of research, education, and
  scholarship; scholarly, educational, intellectual.

has a focus on education. The wikipedia definition of academic instituion

Academic institution is an educational institution dedicated to
  education and research, which grants academic degrees.

also has a focus on education and a requirement to grant academic degrees. To me degree granting is critical to being an academic institution. I do not think of any non-degree granting institute as being academic. Places like the German MPIs and US National Laboratories are cutting edge research institutes, but not academic-institutes.
Non-academic research institutions often have a grants office, just like their academic counterparts. Further employees at non-academic institutions that wish to conduct research can often get a research appointment at a local university.

I strongly disagree with the degree-granting requirement. I know some large institutions, which I consider academic by the definition of that word, which do not grant degrees. Academies of Science, and French and German research institutes, definitely count as "academic institutions" in my head. In short, every one has their own definition, as I said in my comment.

@F'x I don't consider the MPIs as "educational" which to me is critical to be academic. I added the OED definition if that helps (but it probably doesn't).

The American Museum of Natural History in NYC grants Ph.D. degrees.

@DanielE.Shub I work in a research institution, and we train PhD students who work in our research groups though do not award the degree (their university does award the degree). I do not consider us non-academic.

It seems to me that any definition of "academic" that excludes the IAS is obviously incorrect.

My answer is "localized".

In France there is a distinction between museum of arts (arts in a broad sense, antiquities being arts for instance) and museum of natural sciences (biology, paleontology, etc.). The latter is considered an academic institution: part of the people working there have the title of associate or full professor, and they can have PhD students.
In some european countries (France, UK, belgium at least), some museums are part of a university, so I think we can say that they are academic places.

The real question may be then "are you an academic if you work in an academic institution", and I guess the answer is no.

I think a better definition of an academic institution is whether they contribute to peer-reviewed research.
If museum staff often have academic input to peer-reviewed research, then perhaps they could be called an academic institution (in a pragmatic, not legal, sense). However if the museum staff merely serve as a repository of knowledge rather than a source of original ideas, then I would hesitate to call the museum an academic institution.