text:
Is it unethical if I did not inform the current lab I am in that I am looking for another position?
I would like to know whether I should inform the current lab I am applying for other positions. I feel guilty as someone told me it is unethical what I am doing to hide it from the current employer.
I don't feel comfortable with this current lab and I cannot imagine myself in it for many years, but I cannot inform as the PI here is a bully and not compassionate person at all. Yet, I don't have something in my hand, but I am struggling whether I have to be honest or hide it.
The question is: Is it unethical in academia to hide that I am considering applying for another position while I am currently in?

You should always be looking for another position.  Maybe not for tomorrow, but for the future.

Generally speaking, no, you can seek other employment at any time without ethical constraint. This is especially true if the work environment is abusive in any way.
There is one consideration, however, that you should keep in mind. If other people depend on your work, you need to do what you can so that you don't unnecessarily disadvantage them. So, you may have an obligation to complete joint work before you actually leave, or see that it is put into a proper state. But you don't have to do that first.

+1. I would just add that prospective employers or PIs may see your CV and contact your current supervisor for references. In this situation I wouldn't put references in the CV or put someone else who can act as a reference.

@psoares Or indicate you don't want them to be contacted


text:
What is considered a reasonable length for a math research paper?
I've read that many mathematics journals have page limits. What are they, roughly? I think in one of Steven Krantz's pieces he says that if a journal is going to publish a 50-page paper, then "it had better glow in the dark." A friend of mine heard that more junior faculty (straight out of grad school) should avoid publishing papers more than 30 pages long.

What is considered a reasonable length for a piece of string? Papers should be as long as they need to be.

Different math journals specialize in papers of "around" a certain length. Trans AMS, for example, publishes long papers. The web sites give the limits and they are, I assume, pretty rigidly enforced.
I don't know that such long papers need to glow in the dark, but they need to justify their length. It is possible that a single theorem has an exceeding complex and long proof, the details of which are mostly new. If the theorem is important, then it will be justified.
At the other end of the scale a paper with somewhat more modest results, but which presents a complete (and novel) body of knowledge that might be extended by others, likewise warrants a long paper.
But don't try to make a paper extra long just to try to get into Trans AMS. It won't be helpful. And don't make a paper short by leaving out essentials making it impossible to understand.
As short as possible, but no shorter, is probably the right idea.

+1. My impression is that this is additionally dependent on the subject. For example, I have the impression that combinatorial probability papers lately start at 60 pages, whatever their luminescence properties. Some things just require lots of stage-setting and world-building.

At the same time, if a not very interesting result requires a long and boring proof, you might want to do a better job of picking problems in the future.

Also, "as short as possible" doesn't mean taking out all the examples and additional exposition that helps readers understand your paper.  (If I'm the referee, I'll just ask you to put it back in.)  However, how many examples and what to explain about them does depend on the culture of your subfield.

This answer would be better if it had concrete examples or ranges given. Referring the reader to an external website is not the best SE answer protocol.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
My current PI is telling me that I am a very shy person and he is really pissed off, what I should do?
Today in the lab we had a birthday, I had participated, but not so much as I feel anxious in crowded areas. I felt very shy and that's true, so I withdrew from the party after 15 minutes and wished everyone well.
Later, my PI informed me that he is extremely pissed off and did not like the fact that I am a very shy person. I am supposed to select a potential supervisor; the one whose work I am interested in also has also a shy person. The PI (head of the lab) informed me that he cannot assign two shy people to work together (me and the prospective supervisor) as he thought we are going to fail to make significant work.
The ugly truth is that I am an indeed shy girl for many years and I lose many social opportunities, likely marriage opportunities because I don't interact so much as other girls. However, I look very confident in voluntary works, teaching and giving talks.
I know it sounds controversial, however, I began to lose my self-confidence and esteem although I had a strong character.
The question: How I should react towards this?

It seems that English is not your native language (which is fine). Just to be sure, is 'shy' the exact word used by the PI?

Is your PI simply upset that you are looking to leave as he has found out and it's not about "shy"? See https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/124482/72855

@SolarMike, No not all, he later said he wants to keep me in the lab as I am working hard, not at all related to it, I vouch. He is a kind of manipulative person and even I had this feedback from his students before coming.

That last comment is not clear - do you mean "he doesn't want to keep me in the lab" ? Ahh, you just edited that comment - clarity and precision in the post and comments would help...

I edited it, he said in the end that he wants to keep me as I am working hard, but I didn't like his way of delivering it, it was so much aggressive and insulative as well; he made me embarrassed among my colleagues.

Was your PI drunk?

@henning, no I don't think so, I didn't see any whisky on the table, he seemed to be serious.

@Nick, BTW there are other students left, but he did not tell them anything (from his same nationality). Moreover, they were speaking non- English language, and there was nothing to say that's why I left. BTW my colleagues appreciate me thankfully and they are good. The person who had the birthday was the secretary and she appreciates me very well and I do the same and I wished for her all good wishes and it was fine. Literally, I felt there nothing to do or engage as there were many people who are close friends for her and the PI and his colleagues were with her.

This question needs to be localized. What country is this? In one of the comments below, the OP mentioned that the PI appears to be racist. In the US, he would be in serious trouble. See Title IX.

Title IX, In Europe, however, I don't think that the question needs to be localized as it going to be kind of racial segregation. Not good behaviour is not limited to race or ethnicity in itself or specific culture or country, it a personal character by the end and the human traits.

In both your question and some comments, you seem to be using "shy" and "aloof" synonymously, although they  mean quite different things. Did your PI actually use one or both of those words to describe you?

He used only shy, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I confirm that he used the word shy for both me and prospective supervisor.

This answer will only focus on long term strategies that might help you avoid such situations as you move forward.
To succeed in academia you can't really seem to be shy and certainly not seen to be less of a contributor because of it. No matter how good your ideas are, if they don't get considered then you have very little impact.
However, that doesn't mean that you can't actually be shy, or introverted. Many successful scientists are very introverted and even some are quite far out on the autism spectrum. Shyness isn't a defect or a flaw, it is just a personal tendency. Introverted people, in fact, often are extremely productive as they gather internal strength from reflection, consideration, and thought.
But the trick is to learn to act as if you have a different set of preferences than you actually do. You can act like an extrovert naturally would even while remaining an introvert. You play a role in public situations that lets your thoughts and needs get notice in the deliberations and conversations.
But it is a skill that can be difficult to learn. I know, and I did it. The "face" that I show to the world has evolved over time. I once suffered from an "inability" to speak up when I should have and it cost me extra years in a doctoral program. But after that, I learned how to play the role so that my ideas weren't ignored by those with a bigger mouth.
In fact, you aren't limited by your shyness unless you let it overcome you. You can look people straight in the eye and explain your ideas to them. You don't need to defer to louder people.
One person, a friend, who is very prominent in the CS community and is a marvelous public speaker is naturally, and in person, extremely quiet and has some characteristics of autism. But he taught himself to do what needed to be done to have his ideas accepted and to act in public in a way that seems to others to be comfortable, even if it is not. One of his tricks was to join an acting group in which he learned how to "put on" a role and act within that role.
Some people just freeze when confronted. Other people explode into inappropriate behavior. Both of these need to be avoided. Practice is what you need to overcome them if you tend to do that. Preparation for meetings, with notes on what you might want to say can help.
Finally, let me note that people reading your several posts here probably don't think of you as a shy person. In your writing, you are able to say what you want to say. Some of that is the anonymity that the site affords. In a sense, you can hide the "real you" behind a certain invented persona. The trick is to learn to do that same thing in person. Invent a persona for yourself and act in the way it suggests, hiding your "real self". Yes, I do the same thing here as Buffy.

Buffy, thanks so much for this answer! I touched me deeply and especially the last paragraph.

As another autistic person... being able to put on that face is a vital skill, but it's also important to recognise that it can be draining and can contribute to the burnout that a lot of autistic people experience around the 30s-40s. Do it when you have to, but leave space to recharge the batteries, and where possible work with people who don't require it.

@Monkia After being in academia for several years and transitioning to industry, I can attest to this answer by Buffy as well. I had to really teach myself to be expressive and be able to communicate my thoughts in an assertive way, while naturally being a shy and introverted person. It is quite difficult to learn but it came out of necessity to be able to conduct proper research and to teach courses. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you did. Your PI simply isn't used to dealing with people like us.

+1 I teach in public health graduate degree programs. My courses demand group discussion and often presentation, as well as collaboration. I take pains to point out that while some of us are introverts, and some of us are internal processors and that is fine, that the profession is a collaborative one, so they should just look on the participatory stuff as developing a necessary professional skill (they can still dislike it, even if competent at it). That said: the OP's PI was being an arrogant jerk and a bully.

The situation is hard to evaluate without knowing exactly what the PI told you. I feel, however, that the problem here is not necessarely that you are a shy or timid person, but that you did not respect a unwritten social convention.

Today, in the lab we have a birthday, I had participated, but not so much as I feel anxious in the crowded areas. I felt very shy and that's is true, I withdraw from the party after 15 minutes and wished everyone the good.

Birthday parties or other celebrations are often moments where links between colleagues are created. In some cultures, leaving off after 15 minutes could be considered rude.

The PI ( head of the lab) informed I cannot assign two shy people to work together ( me and the prospective supervisor) as he thought we are going to fail to make a significant work.

This is a very strange thing to say to a prospective student, but, as research involves communication, the PI might fear that two extremely shy person could have problems with that essential part of research.
From your own account, you seem anxious in social events but you say that this is not a problem in professional event. You could ask for a meeting with the PI and simply explain that; ideally, you would provide proofs by the things you did that professional communication is not an issue.
However, I would suggest to be careful. If you found the PI rude now, you might want to find another lab.

Emilie, actually I figured out that he is racist, he said that people from my same nationality are aloof and are not similar to people from his own nationality, I told him I am a special case and that is my personality. Actually, I am considering looking for other labs as I cannot endure this behaviour for a couple of years.

Wow, this is horrible. I'm happy you found out and that you will be able to escape! Good luck @Monkia in your search of a new advisor!

It's one of the more disgusting facets of our society that Type B people want to be left alone, but Type A people are rabid in their efforts to change Type B's into Type A's.  I don't like noise but I'm told that I "don't like to have fun."  Something is wrong with me because I'd like to be able to talk to the person I'm with rather than have a band screaming in my ears all night.  And they NEED to fix me.  What I consider fun isn't. Only what they consider fun.
This bigotry is subtle, pervasive and devastating.  If your shyness is the result of an emotional disorder, all the more crushing and ostracizing this is.  And probably no place is it so concentrated as academia (as you can witness on this stack exchange daily.)   "You play by our rules or you don't play at all."   Type A's are bullies, and that's exactly what this PI is doing.  Either be just like him, always agree with him or he throws a tantrum and somehow it's YOUR fault.
What to do?  Say, "You're trying to bully the wrong person," and walk away.  Repeat as needed.

B. Goddard, well said you exactly mention an ugly truth about academia, and I am figuring out whether I should continue in this game or leave, I am not sure what is going to happen. I do like research and working with people share the same value and ethics in the work, however, I didn't find that good PI from heaven.

@Monkia  I bailed.  The latest re-cycled fads in education are tailor made for Type A's.  Things like clickers and "flipped" classrooms and IBL oppress the Type B students and it was too the point that a compassionate prof was no longer allowed to be compassionate.  Not only was I being force to pretend I was perky, I was also forced into forcing my students to pretend they are perky.   I can't do it.  Those of us on the spectrum just can't fake it; it's too shallow and vapid.

B.Goddard, I am so sorry for you and what you have been through, I can understand the pain you had. Actually, since I opened my eyes in the academic world, I found that great professors are pariahs by A-type professors, and it was awkward. Even my self later, I had been blamed many times, I hated my home university so much.  However, I don't want to make a sweeping generalization, we still have people like Geoffry Hinton, the godfather of machine learning, he was a pariah in his community in the last 40 years before 1997 and his ideas come true.

End of the day, you need to buckle down and do good science.  Run experiments.  Write them up.  Publish.  Be a little motor that churns and works and moves forward.  Not one that is always asking questions.  [This is the answer to "what should I do?" Which is the actual question part of your story.]
P.s. On the marriage concerns, this site is very persnickety about off topic posting.  Personally I think there is nothing wrong with your wanting a mate.  I feel ya.  It is a natural human biological drive.  Our hearts are programmed for it.  All that said, I doubt you will find reflective advice in many corners of the Internet.  But if you want killer advice, I recommend joining a running club.  The odds are good.  And the goods are...good.  [And I would avoid the "somebody was mean to me, what do I do" in any discussions with potential suitors.]

The OP never mention wanting to have a 'mate'. This part of the answer is highly inappropriate and irrelevant

Third para:  "I lose many social opportunities likely marriage opportunities"

Yes, but she did not say she wanted one, she said she lost opportunities. Brushing off her preoccupation about her PI is not helping, but adding on top of that a reference to her marital situation sounds a lot like (unvoluntary) sexism.

guest, I think you are kind to the extent you tried to give me the advice to enhance my social life which is off-topic, however, I do agree with your answer, your success in professional and personal complement each other, finding good people in work-place or in my life is a biological need and it is not restricted to a marriage itself.

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


text:
It seems every postdoc position needs representative papers. What should I do if I don't have any publications?
I have spent 4.5 years on my PhD, writing my thesis, with just one average publication. I am 30yo with no work experience and don't want to go to industry. I have been looking at several postdoctoral positions and it seems every postdoc position needs representative papers showing proof for the work. Will I be able to get a postdoc and pursue academia?

Are you sure that a postdoc is actually a good choice for you? "I have no work experience and I don't want to go into industry" does not sound like a recipe for success to me.

It's strange they let you graduate with one publication. I thought in most places (if not everywhere) you have to jump over a certain threshold higher than one.

@Optimistica what field are you in? Average number of papers in grad school can be very field and subdiscipline specific.

@rg_software That depends very much on the field. In many branches of math for example people may finish there PhD with no publications or only a single publication and will spend much of their first post-doc turning their thesis into publishable works.

I agree. At some positions they are looking for applicants with lots of papers.

Can you send a draft/manuscript or does it have to be a published paper? Note that in some fields starting assistant professors commonly have zero publications to their name, so this is very field-dependent.

@jakebeal OP did not imply that their only motivation to pursue academia is their unwillingness to turn to the industry.

Your question is very much field dependent. In some fields it is acceptable to go without a single publication for your PhD (I believe this is true for some subfields in economics, literature and math). However, you are expected to produce according to your community's standards: for example, in the economics/maths examples above you are expected to have at least one or two working papers/papers under submission containing solid results that were discussed in some workshops. In the literature domain, I understand that there's a lot of focus on teaching, written essays and book reviews etc. (I get this knowledge secondhand, I'm far from a humanities faculty). In my field (CS/AI/ML) you wouldn't be allowed to graduate with one average publication, and would most likely not have been allowed to go 4+ years into your thesis, unless there were very unusual circumstances (you mention industry, so I'm assuming you are at the very least in a STEM discipline).
So, the question you should be asking yourself is: am I comparable to my peers in terms of my PhD accomplishments?
If you have a lot of amazing work that just needs a bit more time, you can either

Ask your advisor to graduate in another year to let these results come to fruition under the umbrella of your thesis OR
Put them up on ArXiv (or the equivalent) and list them there. This is not ideal, but at least it shows that you weren't idle.

From the perspective of a postdoc host, I would most likely pass on an application that's clearly lacking in publications, even if it is backed up by glowing references. I would be more inclined to accept one that is backed up by preprints, if they contained amazing results that are vouched for by people whose opinion I respect. Postdocs should be people who are able to support their own research thread without very close supervision (they should be more independent than grad students at the very least), so you should prove to me that this is indeed the case; this is a tall order without proof that you can actually publish peer-reviewed work in good venues on your own.
I'm sorry to offer an answer you most likely don't want to hear, and I wish you all the best!

A strong recommendation by a (ideally known - at least to your postdoc mentor) PhD supervisor should compensate and may even outweigh publications. That person might also explain why you have not published - for example due to null results which are just hard to publish in some fields, but nevertheless can be the result of good scientific work.

I hope so. I switched problems after a certain point. Just wrapping up my paper right now with 0 publications. My adviser explained what happened but it's hard to believe the committees won't "penalize" me.

It depends mostly for which positions you apply: some postdoc jobs attract a lot of applications (prestigious institution, high salary, cutting-edge research topic, etc.), and some really don't: it's not so uncommon to see certain postdoc positions not filled by lack of acceptable candidate. Because this level of job is very specialized everyone with a PhD gets a chance, assuming you are not too picky about where you apply.


text:
Thesis or published papers for PhD application?
There are two types of programs (maths - Turkey) that I can apply for MSc : With and without thesis. I agree that writing a thesis is a writing task to learn and important but I can also learn how to write when writing a paper.
But also I believe that writing a thesis (i.e. a book!) is very time consuming and instead I prefer spending that time on producing research papers. My question is that would it better to have published papers than having a thesis in MSc when applying for PhD or quite the reverse, Master-with-thesis program is more valuable for PhD application for a Canadian universities?

Welcome to academia.SE. Could you add country tag(s)? The question does not make sense everywhere, and the tags would help the right people to find the question.

My department offers both thesis- and nonthesis master’s degrees. The non-thesis program has no requirement for—and therefore no support for—research. In particular, the non-thesis program has a tighter schedule of classes, leaving less time to do research, and faculty do not expect to (and therefore rarely do) supervise or fund research by non-thesis students. So I’m a bit skeptical whenever someone claims that a non-thesis masters student can “do research anyway”.

I don't know Canadian universities but, the Turkish Higher Council of Education don't accept master degrees without thesis as a masters degree when you apply for doctoral programs. It may affect your situation.

This depends on where you are and what are the traditions of the places you would intend to apply to for a doctorate. It would also depend on the field, which you state as mathematics.
However, the advantage of the thesis is that you get some direction in creating it, but probably less direction in the writing of a set of papers.
The other thing is that a thesis comes with a fairly definite end point. You write it, someone reads and approves it and you are done. With papers, it is much less definite as you then depend on getting the papers accepted somewhere. Depending on your field and the publishing venue this can take a long time. There are questions here that suggest that eighteen months in review happens frequently enough to be alarming.
Note that a thesis normally ins't "a book" though in some fields (not likely math) it could be. In the sciences rather than the arts or humanities, it is normally a scientific study of some kind with a written summary of methodology and results. In mathematics the thesis could either be strictly (theoretical) mathematics or an associated philosophy or historical study. If it is a theoretical thesis then you need a suitable problem to work on. Moreover you need to be able to make progress on that problem in some way. Finding a problem can be difficult (hence the advisor) as some are too easy, some are too hard, and some are just right. But you aren't normally expected, as a master's student to come up with your own problem, though this varies by place.
I'm also going to guess that the non-thesis option isn't designed to leave you a lot of time to write independent papers. Normally it would be filled with coursework that has its own (time consuming) requirements. Most places, the thesis option would imply a bit less course work and more "quality time" with an advisor or research group working on some problem or study.
You can be successful with either. You can also be successful if you do the non-thesis option and don't produce any publishable research along the way. Acceptance into a doctoral program can be achieved through a variety of paths, as long as they predict success in scientific/mathematical studies and research.
You don't, in fact, need to prove that you don't actually need the guidance of a doctoral program just to be admitted to it. You aren't there to prove to people that you don't need to be there.
Finally, let me note that scientific/mathematical writing isn't just writing. You need something to write about. That is the research part that needs to precede any writing that explains the methodology and results. If you don't do that, then you have nothing to write about.

I advise to pick the non thesis program.  You can still produce work and publish.  But the thesis is overrated.  Also I have seen it trip some people up who spend too much time on it.
Keep it simple and don't ask for a hurdle you don't need.  You can still learn all the math you can.


text:
Is it possible to know about the research quality of a professor from the number of citations of his/her papers in Google Scholar?
I am in the process of advisor searching for a PhD in mathematics.
I came across this site called Google Scholar which lists nearly all the publications of a professor.
I found that many professors don’t have any citations of their papers in the first three years
If at all, it is two or three citations per paper.
Does this reflect that their publications are of poor quality?
If yes what are the parameters other than Google Scholar to know about research work of the professors?
Are there any alternatives to Google Scholar which serve the above purpose?

What's the field?

The main thing you should be looking for in a potential advisor is their success as an advisor, not their "quality" as a researcher.  Those two are correlated, obviously, but they are not the same thing.

@JeffE;what things contribute to quality as an advisor

@Join_PhD Happy and successful students, in that order.

This would vary by field, of course. But there is more to selecting a good advisor than just their output, even the recognized quality of that output. In fact, having a superstar as an advisor can be a mixed blessing/curse. They may be so focused on their own research and career that they give you little direction in your own. If you are especially self motivated and can find and develop your own research this is less of an issue than if you are like most students, needing guidance in finding problems and developing solutions.
But the citation count of a person gives some, but not the final, measure of their quality as a researcher, not necessarily as an advisor. If you want an even better measure (IMO) get the citation count of the students that they have advised. Even just the number of "produced" students and where they wound up in their careers is a good, but not perfect, measure. It is more likely to be useful for a senior professor than a junior one, of course.
If you are already at the institution, student scuttlebutt is actually a pretty good indicator of an advisors "quality" as an advisor, if not as a scholar.

TIL a new word :) The citation count of students is a surprisingly helpful criterion indeed. Some big-shots never teach their students how to write publishable papers; for example, they personally get their own unreadable stuff published thanks to name recognition, but when their students try the same, they get rejected.

Thank you very much for the advice.Can you kindly say how to know where the students a professor has adviced got placed in his/her career?Also the field concerned is Mathematics(Pure)

Though the advisors have a personalized web page,many students of an advisor dont have any web pages

@Join_PhD Labs will often have their former postdocs and phd students listed along with where they are at. Another good metric is to check out the recent dissertations from the department and see who ended up where. If all of a professors students are ending up in R1 universities, you have a really good idea as to the quality of the adviser. My own former adviser consistently has produced students who end up at R1 institutes. She is not the most cited person in the field, but she is very good at producing students with strong publication records at graduation.

For starters, in Mathematics you can explore the Mathematics Genealogy Project, which lists many mathematicians, their advisors and students.

the citation count of the students that they have advised — Even setting aside my discomfort with conflating citation counts with research quality, I think this misses the mark.  I think a better measure is whether the advisor's former students have jobs consistent with your professional goals.  If you want a faculty position in a top-10 department, look for an advisor whose former students are faculty in top-10 departments.  If you are more interested in an industry research position, look for an advisor whose former students are industry researchers.  And so on.

(I'm assuming that your goal is not just to become a good researcher, but to get a job being a good researcher.)

@JeffE;yes you are right

It's an important metric for evaluating research production.  Of course no metric is perfect, blabla.  But it is a decent one.  Despite the people who hate this, it is normal to see h-indices listed (even as a field) in nominations for rewards for instance.  And hiring and compensation committees look at it.
Again, it's not perfect (can be gamed, other metrics may show things it doesn't).  But it is a very simple reasonable first cut.  But I think talking to scholars in the field is actually the superior metric.  People know who the big/medium/small wheels are.  And which are tires that fell off the car and are sitting on the side of the highway.
Finally while being with a big name is ceteris paribus, a very reasonable variable to raise, it is not the only one in looking at advisors.  I.e. research production =/= good advisor.  You need to consider other things like is the fellow a jerk or nice, how fast do people graduate, is it a huge lab group or tiny, current funding, etc.
For instance, I would be inclined to avoid professors working on tenure (they may not get it, or may need to be slave drivers to get it) and would prefer someone who was a big wheel but is winding down (maybe 60 or so in age).  Even the jerk, slavedriver big wheels tend to get a little more kind and grandfatherly towards the end.   And reputation has a long dwell time, so it's not as critical for an old, established scientist if he goes emeritus shortly after you worked with him (might even be an opportunity for you to sneak under the wire).

More-or-less this is sensible advice. However, I'd be cautious about professors 60 or so in age: I've met a number of them, and while some are great people and scientists, there's a high probability that they don't care anymore, or – even worse – they are not open to new ideas: "we've done it like so for the last 40 years, and all people claiming it's wrong are wrong". So indeed talking to scholars in the field is actually the superior metric. Starting from any metric is better than wondering in the dark, but it's crucial to know what the metric actually measures and says about one

As others have pointed out, research output for your advisor may not be as important as other qualities in the supervisory relationship.  Having given that caveat, if you are going to measure research level by citation count then it is important to at least adjust this for basic things like the number of authors on papers.  For a measure of total citation for an author, it is preferable to use the author-adjusted citation count, where citations to papers with multiple authors are shared between those authors.
If you do not adjust for this then the citation count will tend to be much larger for authors who do papers in research groups with many co-authors, and this will not accurately reflect the research output of that single author.  For example, if five academics each write one research paper and each paper gets 10 citations, then their citation count would each be 10.  If those academics put each others names on those same papers, without any further change, then the raw citation count for each academic jumps up to 50, without having produced any additional research.

Then does there exist any software/website where I can judge the impact of a professor?\


text:
Etiquette question: is there such a thing as accepting an offer 'too early'?
TLDR: Got a PhD offer at top choice, all details checked out, and I want to accept now (much earlier than the April 15th deadline).
A colleague (at the professor level) I mentioned this to said I should wait as it could look 'too earnest' accepting roughly 10 days after notification.
Is there any truth to this claim? I.e. does it 'look bad' (i.e. desperate) if I accept now? I'm just genuinely excited and am ready to lock it in.
Additional details (from comments):

This offer is a 'hard' offer such that it is from the department, many cc'd people, and is in writing
I have other 'hard' offers from other universities and have yet to hear back from a few more

Other relevant questions:

Responding to a prof's email about acceptance in a PhD program

Update:
Thank you all SO much for your input. I went ahead and accepted the offer and got feedback saying they appreciated the rapid response and the PI was eager to arrange a talk for next steps. While this is likely the standard positive response, I have marked Buffy's answer as correct. The first two sentences made the most sense: 'Actually, it is simple courtesy to accept as soon as you know you will do so. This helps the institution deal with its obligations to you and others.' I then let the other universities know immediately after and I hope this helps their search process.

I don't understand how 'looking too earnest' would be a bad thing. Can you elaborate on that (although I agree that you shouldn't accept until you are ready to do so)

Hi Strawberry,
I think as others have pointed out, the idea behind 'waiting' would be to see if they will increase the stipend or I can 'pit' different universities against each other to increase stipend (this is NOT what I want to do - just echoing sentiments below).

There is such a thing as accepting "too early": if you accept the offer before it's made.

There may be benefits to accepting an offer "too early."  This includes non-work opportunities such as socials earlier-in that will help you build rapport before start date, and also helping them to supply you more quickly with necessary equipment, etc. before you begin.   I realize this is not a complete answer.

No. It can be an offer you can't refuse. :)

Actually, it is simple courtesy to accept as soon as you know you will do so. This helps the institution deal with its obligations to you and others. It isn't a game you play for "advantage". You hope to develop a long term relationship with this institution. Treat them with respect and expect them to reciprocate.
Don't accept before you are ready, such as when other offers might come in, but don't delay for any perceived "strategic" reason.
Similarly, once you have accepted the offer, extend the other universities the courtesy of letting them know you will not be accepting theirs.

My experience is that in reality if you leave it to the last minute (and lots do) there will be a lot of "Well, if she actually arrives then she can do this, but we can't be sure, so let's not give her that" and when you start there will be lots of running round and loose-end-ness going on. An early acceptance means you'll have a nice package waiting for you that everyone concerned has had time to mull over, if they're competent. Make sure you're sure though!

I would take your colleagues advice - but not for the reason he cited.
Waiting a few days allows the excitement to die down and stops you from making rash decisions. Perhaps there is some catch in the agreement that you glazed over because you were too interested in the good parts.
You've also mentioned that other offers are coming in - waiting allows you to consider all of them properly. There might be a gem among them that you notice too late (if at all). It would be unfortunate to accept this offer moments before a better one arrives in the mail.
So I recommend waiting at least a couple of days just to cool down and consider your future carefully. If you have already done this, then I see no reason not to go ahead. As other answers have said, you want to build a positive relationship with these people and being prompt is a good way to start.

This is good advice.  At the minimum, one should wait until having sobered up from celebrating the offer before accepting!

I doubt they will care much either way if you accept early or at the last minute. Appearing eager is not a bad thing. You should be excited to start a PhD.
It is courteous and prudent not to delay if your decision has really already been made. It means they and you can move forward with the process of registering as a student. It also means they can say no to waitlisted candidates.
However, if your decision is not certain yet, then don’t make it earlier than necessary. For example, you haven’t seen all the other options yet. And you haven’t visited. These could change your mind. So I would wait until you have a clearer picture.

A few questions to consider:

Do you have a binding contract signed off by them you just need to sign and send back? Or any other legally binding offer?
Until you have that you need to be in a hurry (to get it, not to sign)

Following your edit: you did not mention the country so I am not sure what "hard" means. They can write the nicest letter with "we want you!" and cc: the whole world, but if in your jurisdiction this is not binding you should be careful. It is not like you are buying a TV - this is a PhD program you are very eager to get into.
For instance in France you get an offer letter which is legally binding.

Is there any advantage of waiting? Negotiations? A better offer from somewhere else you would be waiting for?
If the answer is "no" you do not gain anything at waiting and your mind will be at peace once all the paperwork is over.

Following your edit: so it looks like there are other events you are waiting for? (the replies from other schools)

There is no logical reason to delay your answer once you are certain of the deicsion you have taken.
You are not in a position to negotiate, and the contract details for a PhD position (in the majority of cases, but you can correct me if it's different for you) are locked. You are not earning any "reputation point" or "coolness points" by waiting for the sake of waiting. Accepting as soon as you made up your mind - and I mean you are sure about it - is the correct, respectful, and polite thing to do so that the university has the time to start the paperwork and eventually notify other candidates that the position has been taken. Those candidates in turn can make up their minds on the offers they got. Essentially, there is quite a bit of people waiting on your answer so unless there are reasons to delay I would not do it.
IF you have a reason to wanting to take some time, be it to let your emotions cool down and take a clear-headed decision or because you want to wait for other offers to come in and compare, then by all means do so. It is in your full rights. Otherwise, if you know you will want to take that place no matter what, lock it as soon as possible.
Also remember, something many people underestimate is that once you sign a contract you have a job. You are employed with all the benefits that come with it. If the university burns down tomorrow and you have not signed a contract, you will lose it.
I am sorry to say, but from the information you provided I don't see the reason in your colleague's advice.

"You are employed with all the benefits that come with it." - Not in the UK you aren't.  (I don't know about other countries).

I think your advisor has the right instincts here.  Any time you are in this sort of position (schools, job search, etc.) it makes more sense to wait.  It can only be to your benefit.  Also, school A may decide to up their offer, give you a visit, etc.
It's not so much that anything bad will come of your accepting early. It won't make you look bad or too eager.  But you are just not using the situation to max advantage.
P.s.  I think it's a good question.  Should not be closed.

As a follow-up to this - do you have any recommendations as to whether I should communicate to the PI I am in contact with the offering university? E.g. is it worthwhile for me to communicate with that Prof that I intend to accept?
My key worry is that I can open up my spots at other universities/university-associated-fellowships (as I've read and understood this selection process can be quite resource-intensive).

Continue to communicate to this guy and deepen the relationship but don't make a commitment.  Don't worry about the slots at other schools.  They are running a bulk process and have people who decline/accept/don't show up out of the pool all the time.  They will take care of themselves (e.g. letting in a few weaker candidates late if they need to). Be respectful but at the same time it is not your responsibility to optimize for them.  Schools ding people all the time and get dinged all the time.  Believe me they have a lot less at risk (from portfolio impact) than you do in the single commit.

This is a poor answer - this is an offer for admission for grad school, not a job offer. Trying to stretch out for a better negotiation position is going to make you look bad, not good. I also find it a bit offensive to think of the admissions process for PhDs as a "bulk process": there might be some bulk filtering early on in the process, but at the time of accepting students it is in my experience quite personal and individualized. At a top school, it's less about "letting in a few weaker candidates" and more about "extending offers to other well-qualified options."

Disagree.  Committees routinely get many decisions towards the end. Perhaps even the bulk of them.  There are very few times you have this level of control, freedom.  Take advantage.  Oh...and from personal perspective 2 of 6 of my accepts sent fellowships (few extra thousand bucks but makes a big difference when you are so poor) AFTER the initial accept letter and before decision time.  [And  you don't need to let them know why you are waiting.]

Editing especially the latest comment into the answer would improve it.

Is there any truth to this claim? I.e. does it 'look bad' (i.e. desperate) if I accept now?

As others indicate, some people/organizations may "raise an eyebrow" at an immediate acceptance, but most wouldn't. Problem is, you don't know which is which.
What I suggest you do is: Write them something which is almost an acceptance, but not quite. For example:

Dear Mr. [Secretary / Investigator / Administrator's name],
I was very pleased to receive your offer, and will in all likelihood accept it.
In the mean time, I would like to know whether [something trivial here]. Also,
  once I accept, what exactly [some procedural-technical question here, timelines etc]?
Respectfully,
  Reputable Misnomer

So, you're asking about things that happen after your acceptance, as though you're about to to make those arrangements. But you still have not said the words "I accept". When you actually do accept, it will be after a (hopefully very short) while when you get an answer. And regardless of whether the answer is satisfying or not, I don't think anyone would think it strange that you accept then, because it's not an immediate acceptance.
Also, this does "tie" them to you in the sense that you're telling them to expect an acceptance, so unless they're completely psycopathic they would not withdraw the offer without saying "please make a final decision immediately".


text:
Is it wise to ask a PhD supervisor about the quality of my work?
She says, why do you want to hurry? Let's put the defense in December, then you can have several publications out till then.
I am thinking of asking directly, "What do you think about my PhD work? Are you not happy with my work and is that the reason you are delaying correcting my manuscripts? "
Will that be appropriate? What should I do and tell/ask her?

Are the manuscripts part of your thesis? I can understand wanting her to check over your thesis, since her approval is ultimately needed, but if you have potentially publishable manuscripts, then why not just submit them for publication yourself? Or are you still a bit unsure of being able to write to the standards of your field?

@DaveLRenfro yes, they are part of my thesis. Though I think that my manuscripts are in a potentially publishable state. But, it's a norm in my group to get the manuscripts checked by the supervisor. Grammatically there shouldn't be any mistakes, but she always finds something to be added/more work to be done with the results/discussion section before submitting. It took me 2 iterations of the draft to get my 1st paper published. Same goes for my colleagues.

But, it's a norm in my group to get the manuscripts checked by the supervisor — Given the two-year delay you describe, I strongly suspect this is more an aspiration than a norm.

Whenever I ask her to correct my manuscripts — It is not your advisor's job to correct your manuscripts. — I am thinking of asking directly, "What do you think about my PhD work?" — What?  You haven't been doing this all along???

Do you have plans for after the Phd and if yes, does your supervisor know about them?

In other words, do you need the publications?

I think the recent edit by @Buffy changed the main thrust of the question.  Previously the question could be summarized as Is it wise to ask my supervisor why she is delaying publication of my research?  "How am I doing?" is arguably a more important question than "What's the holdup already?", but the existing answers mostly address the latter.

@JeffE, I changed (only) the title, as "what's her deal" was uninformative and the second paragraph of the current version is explicitly in line with the new title. Of course, you and others are free to edit as you see best. A title that asked why she is "delaying my graduation" might also work in this case, but it isn't clear to me that she actually is doing that.

Well, now the whole situation is gone. This does not seem helpful. Now my answer looks really crazy without the context. The question was: Should I ask my supervisor why she has not given me any feedback, which I need to finish my PhD thesis, for over a year now, while other students got plenty of feedback?

Yes, it is appropriate to ask her what is going on. This is your PhD and she has no right to delay it in the way that she is currently doing. As a supervisor, she is supposed to support you in finishing your thesis, and if she is not doing that, you have a good reason to complain about it.
I do not think that it is even important what she is thinking of your work. If she thinks that your work is bad, that would make it even more important to give you this kind of feedback. So that is not a good reason to not give you feedback, and I also think it's highly unlikely that this is the actual reason why.
I would simply argue with the facts. After 5 years of doing your PhD, you want to be finished soon. In order to do that, you need her to give feedback on the manuscripts. If she says "why the hurry" again, there are several things you can point out, for example:

Postdoc positions usually start in autumn, so in order to get one of
those it would be good to have the PhD rather sooner than later,
since there is a lot of work to do for applications etc. beforehand.
You feel that you cannot use the additional time productively, since
you have done all the work that you wanted to do and do not need to
delay any further.

But actually, the question is beside the point, because it is your decision, not hers, and that is not why you are talking to her. If she really tries to derail the conversation in this way, I would call her out on it. "I feel like you are avoiding the actual issue I am addressing here. I have waited for your feedback for 1.5 years now. I think this is clearly too long, and now that I am ready to finish my PhD, I really need that feedback. I can understand that you are busy, but I have the feeling that you are frequently giving my work a low priority. I do not know why you are doing this, but it is frustrating. I currently do not feel appropriately supervised by you."
Well okay, I might have a slightly confrontational nature, so take this with a grain of salt. But I think in such a case it is adequate to criticize her for the lack of supervision that you have experienced throughout your PhD.
A last tip would be to give her deadlines. Usually people prioritize things where they get a clear deadline, even if the deadline is arbitrary. In the best case scenario, you can tie the deadline to an actual milestone of your final phase of the PhD - like maybe you want to say that by the end of March, you want to be done with the actual research and only focus on structure and design of the thesis, so that the deadline for her would be somewhere in March.

+1 for Usually people prioritize things where they get a clear deadline, even if the deadline is arbitrary, among other things.

I think this answer started out ok but then went off the rails. Giving your supervisor deadlines sounds extremely risky, depending on personalities. In some fields/places/departments the advisor is in absolute control of your future so demanding can just be like academic suicide. But yes, ask. And let her know that you have a need to finish on an early schedule. I don't see that as risky at all, and might get things moving. But do this face to face, not by email. You want an answer so don't make it too easy to just be ignored.

I feel like setting a deadline is the least off-the-rails part of my answer, to be honest. If a supervisor cannot handle getting told that their PhD student has a time schedule for their PhD and maybe has other plans for his life than writing a PhD for 5+ years, then they are a bad supervisor.

In retrospect I agree with @Buffy about deadlines. I still think it's good to have one, but providing a deadline should be done with some care, and probably any deadline should not come across in any way as arbitrary on your [= user104587] part, but rather something that is forced upon you.

But giving it carefully is fine. I object to the advice of not giving it at all and completely placing yourself at the mercy of your supervisor. I think that a PhD student should be more proactive than that. Something is seriously wrong if a PhD student has to jeopardize his own PhD thesis, his schedule, his plans for life just to please his supervisor, who gives nothing back in return. (Sadly, the details of the story are now missing because someone erased them, but this supervisor has had these manuscripts that she was supposed to give feedback on for more than a year.)

Hmmm. And if you give a firm deadline and don't meet it. Then what? Give up your degree possibilities?

I don't know the personalities here nor the way your advisor thinks about things, but, while I'd probably agree that she is wrong, she may, in fact, be trying to place you in as strong a position for your future as possible. Presumably she knows some things about your field and how to be a success starting out. I hope so, anyway. So, I wouldn't just assume that she is trying to obstruct you as the first estimation of what is happening. It could but the opposite, but you are in a better position to judge that than I.
But, you have a legitimate need to finish and move on with an expeditious schedule. And you can express that to her and get a sense of what your path is to an early completion.
Schedule a sit-down meeting in which you (a) let her know you want to be done ASAP and why that is, and (b) what you need to do to accomplish that.
Try to learn, in such a meeting, why she thinks delay is best, if that is actually what is happening. Try to get an honest evaluation of your work.
You will almost certainly want your advisor to be a supporter you in your early career, so try not to jeopardize that. You seldom win by fighting with your advisor.

You gotta fight for your interests.  Mousing around will get you continue to being stepped on.  The squeeky wheel gets the oil.  Yeah Buffy is right, the little tinpots might walk on you if you fight them, but they walk on you a lot harder if you let them without squawking.
Personally I wouldn't ask for "feedback" but movement.  Hand in papers that YOU THINK are ready to be submitted.  That are how you would submit them as a PI.  You should do this regardless, because why have your advisor review something that is not your best effort?  So once they meet that bar, it's not hard to see just moving them right to the journals.  Stat.
Same with the thesis defense.  Just schedule it. What's the worst that can happen?  You fail.  So.  It's a delay either way.  So, just push the peanut.  Make the cars crash.
As for the thesis, like Michael Schmidt, below, I didn't get any edits from my advisor (or really give him an opportunity).  Gave him the doc 10 days before the defense (as was required by the rules).  He whined a little, but I said, you're a committee member like the rest.  You can fail me if it's not good enough.  He didn't fail me...it was a good thesis and good research record.  It would have been silly for him to do otherwise.  [Of course if your research is not above average, this kind of hardball may not be as feasible.]
P.s. Hanging onto grad students for an extra year to get more papers out of them is a known trait of some professors.  Gotta push back on that.

While in principle I agree with you, depending on the country, it may not be possible to schedule a defense without the supervisors consent. Also failing could have severe consequences.

Normally, you both should have the interest to publish as soon as possible. If she doesn't hurry, she has other priorities. That your supervisor/professor has for weeks/months often no time to review your manusscripts is quite usual. But over a year sounds strange to alarming to me, you probably discussed the main statements/abstracts ot those manuscripts with her before writing them.
Other questions are the requirements of your faculty. Technically, you don't need in every country several articles published in peer-reviewed journals. It's your decision and responsibility to write and submit your thesis at some point to the faculty or wait for years for your supervisor. For instance, I didn't show my diploma thesis to my supervisor after writing it to review style and content, I know many students do this and some professors want it, but there are no standards and it had no negative outcome for me.
So, in your case, I would tell here what your timeline is, how much work is left, and when you want to submit your thesis. Making up stories in your mind she might not be happy with your research is a dead end...

Why should the student have the "interest to publish as soon as possible"?


text:
Can someone apply for a Masters in Computer Science having two years Associate degree and professional experince in programing
If someone has a associate's degree with relevant courses (math and physics) and more than 10 years of (verifiable) programming experience, is it generally possible to apply for graduate admission at a good international university?

What do you mean by "overcome the career growth issues"?

Hi, I've migrated this question to Academia as it is about graduate admissions, and not about how to teach Computer Science.  Good luck, and I hope you find your answers!

The real (albeit unhelpful) answer is that you'll have to check particular programs you're interested in and see whether they require a bachelor's degree. I suspect that [virtually] all will -- there is no "fast track" for programmers that I'm aware of. So, you may want to search for efficient ways to get your BS and/or MS [though, this site does not allow "shopping questions", so you'll have to do this search elsewhere]. Good luck.

Generally, in most places, you can apply to a program. But that doesn't mean that you will necessarily be admitted. In some places a bachelor's degree might be required for graduate study, but in those places, I assume that exceptions can be made but only for exceptional cases.
For any application, for an academic program or for a job, you will need to make your own case as to your suitability and likelihood of success. But even then, you can expect a lot of competition, most of it from people whose qualifications are easier to evaluate. So you need a strong case.
In particular, without an undergraduate degree, people will suspect that there are gaps in your education. Being a "programmer" doesn't, of itself, fill any of those gaps. So you will either need to demonstrate competence, or obtain it to be successful.

In the US, generally no, but what you could do is look into combination bs/ms programs, of which there are many. In those programs you generally start taking graduate courses in your last year of college, and they save a year of graduate work. Of course you will always want to speak to someone from the specific program to know how your combination of AA or AS courses and potential life experience credits (or the ability to test out of certain courses via a challenge test) will work there.

I wouldn't be quite so discouraging about the US, actually. But the advice is good.


text:
Prioritizing subject matter of future PhD versus university and professor
In your opinion, which is more important when deciding where to do a PhD?
Choosing a top-tier university with a brilliant professor who is an excellent mentor or choosing a decidedly average university with a professor who you do not know the quality of their mentorship, but the subject matter is naturally more interesting to you?

I give you my two cents here. Do not embark on a Ph.D. program unless you enjoy the type of research you would do for your Ph.D. program. The Ph.D. itself is not an easy task even if you love what you do.

Actually, it depends on what sort of career you want to have. Probably it will wind up more like that of the advisor you choose than the other. If that makes you happy, then it is what you want. Mentorship would mean a lot to me, though. Your choices might well be different.

@Buffy The rather extreme editing omits an important point in the original question, where OP said that they would likely spend a lot of their time with the excellent mentor working on side projects that interested them more and then try to switch fields after graduating. Not many people could be an excellent mentor for a different field, and going it alone and switching fields after graduating is a really tough row to hoe.

Some people are fairly agnostic about their choice of dissertation topic and are happy learning to become interested in whatever interests their advisor. The fact that you are posting this question suggests that you are not one of those people.
You'll be happier, do better work, and set your career in the right direction if you pick an area that genuinely interests you. It's true that an advisor's prestige has a lot of currency, but it's not worth so much that it makes sense to sacrifice what you feel is best for you in the long run. Grad school is tough enough without the stress of added friction.

Lets talk about some statistics first-

institutional prestige matters in hiring decisions made by committees. Getting your PhD or doing a Postdoc at a top 10 university matters. The degree in which it matters varies across fields. If you did not get your PhD in History from Harvard, you are at a major statistical disadvantage in obtaining a tenure track position. See Clauset, A., Arbesman, S., & Larremore, D. B. (2015).
Publishing during your PhD career is highly correlated to your academic productivity during tenure track. Graduate students tend to have better publications records at elite institutes. See Horta & Santos (2016). Whether this is because of the more competitive culture, the increase in graduate student "quality", or the pressure from a demanding professor is unknown. Probably a combination.
These above two factors depend on field. Fields that have strong cultures of scholars having been in the field prior to academia give less weight to institutional prestige (e.g. education and nursing) but they still care.

So in other words, grad students in an elite university tend to publish more. They also tend to dominate tenure track positions.
You dont have to go to an elite university for your phd, but you at least need to do so for your post doc or masters.
In my own experience, I had a strong publication record at graduation, did my postdoc at an elite university, and was hired for a tenure track position at an R1 university. My advice might very well be biased to my own experiences but I feel that the data and statistics say that my experience was the norm rather than the exception.


text:
Applying for another job within same department?
I've been a postdoc for just under a year in a nice lab, and I have no problems with my boss or colleagues. However, another position has just come up in the same department, which fits way better with my career plans. I've been advised to apply anyway, and only mention it to my boss after an interview / offer are made, if I get as far as that. The reasoning being, there's no need to cause awkwardness in the group if I'm not even shortlisted. The problem is, the HR persons responsible for recruitment are the same for both departments. So, even if I ask for confidentiality in the application form, it's not impossible that the information could leak to one of my colleagues.
So the questions are:
 - From a PI's perspective, how acceptable is it to hear one of your postdocs is trying to move to another job in the same department?
 - From a postdoc's perspective, what is the less damaging strategy in this scenario? Try to keep it confidential, and risk the info leaking to your PI? Or telling your PI about it before you apply, and risk creating an awkward feeling among your group - especially if you don't get the job?
Disclaimer: I'm aware of previous questions around the theme of multiple job applications to the same University / department; and of questions about changing departments while in a graduate program. What I'm asking is neither of those, as you're already employed and thinking of moving within the same department.

You've been a post-doc for just under one year. By the end of this year you should be applying for real jobs, not still coming up to full productivity on some other post-doc position. And that is even before trying to create drama without purpose.

@JonCuster That seems to assume that 1 year of a post doc is all that is needed before applying for 'real' jobs. Moving between post docs is quite a reasonable move to make in many fields.

@BryanKrause - I think I implied 2 years in total, or at least tried to. Over the last decade, post-docs in my group have generally started interviewing before 18 months and are mostly gone by 24 months to permanent jobs (context: US national lab, materials science).

This seems to me to depend on personalities more than anything. You need to make a judgement about the reaction of your boss. Most people, IMO, would support you in any career advancement. Giving early notice, in most situations, is beneficial, as it lets them know that they may need to search for a replacement or otherwise arrange schedules, etc.
Putting your options out, as you have here (fantastic opportunity, career goals...) would probably be a good way to approach it. I don't think anyone expects you will remain a post-doc forever.
If your boss is a reasonable person, then it would seem to me that s/he would be happy for you, and happy that if you get the new position that you will still be available for consultation and that your expertise won't be lost.
There are exceptions, of course, even beyond personality. If one is working with highly sensitive information, for example, it might be necessary to escort them off premises immediately on hearing that they might be leaving. But the situations in which you would need to hide your application would, to me, be rare.
Finally, I think that the issue of same department has no real world meaning in such a decision. For example, most people would celebrate a move from post-doc to tenure track faculty.


text:
How to be fearless as Ph.D student?
I am a computer science Ph.D. student. I have written a couple of research papers and some of them are under review. I have started becoming fearless from some time as my past experience has told me that with time and with hard work every research problem is solvable to some extent (make something publishable out of it). I have tried to now pick the research which is less related to my previous research works. I am doing this thing on purposefully as I don't want to narrow my research domain. My belief so far is that pick something read few papers for some months and purpose a question take more months and then write it.
Question: I am wondering what are the other things which I can try to be more fearless or what are the things students should practice in order to become more and more fearless? I used to a person with lots of fear but now I have become confident. I know fear some time push me but after failing some projects I have become a fearless person.
Some meaning of the fear is to take the courage to pick a research problem and solve it and make it publishable.

What do you mean by fearless? (I appreciate that you give a brief definition, but can you elaborate.) Presumably you consider it a positive attribute, why?

@ user2768 fearless means, now I know that there will many times when my researcher paper will be rejected and I again need to correct them then submit again etc

That doesn't seem to help, your question becomes: How to be a PhD student that know[s] there will [be] many times when my researcher paper will be rejected and I again need to correct them then submit again?

I think confident is a more suitable expression in this context than fearless.

Good luck, staff!

with time and with hard work every research problem is solvable to some extent — Maybe for you; I haven't been so lucky.

@JeffE I mean to say that not the exactly same problem which I took intially but some variant of it ( easier version of it).

@staff I understood exactly what you meant.  I repeat: I haven't been so lucky.

Strongly related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2219/how-should-i-deal-with-discouragement-as-a-graduate-student

use the power of the force! Slowly, i have the impression computer "scientist" think inproving incrementally some algorithms is doing science, while most math/physics PhD students need at least 4-6 years, would explain the flood of type of such questions and getting surreal upvotes...

If it was easy to be particularly fearless as a phd student then a larger percentage would be. But this is not the case. For good or bad :)

I'd say that you must learn not to take things too close to your heart. "Fear" appears when something hurts our self-esteem. The key is to realize that in most cases it should not. Say, a reviewer rejects your paper, providing very harsh comments. You feel like jumping between a cold shower and a frying pan, but you should't. Reviewers don't know you personally, they are only doing a job of bashing your paper if it's not good enough. If you paper is not good enough, it doesn't mean that you aren't good enough, so your self-esteem shouldn't suffer. (And it especially shouldn't suffer if a reviewer is wrong.) Accept criticism and continue.
If you fail, often it means that you aim high, so it is normal to fail. We aren't in school where all problems have ready answers. Many directions are dead ends, and we must realize that it's OK to hit a dead end from time to time.
In a sense, it is equally important to practice humility. A huge number of talented people establish start-ups, record songs, write novels and draw comic strips. Most of them fail, this is just the way it is, and we shouldn't think of ourselves as exceptions. Accept that failures are as inevitable as gravity (so, once again, don't take it too close to heart). It is also useful to understand your limits. We all have stronger sides and weaker sides, and even our stronger sides in most cases won't get us a Nobel prize next year. Aim high, but stay realistic with your goals.
In short, be passionate about your topic, but try to keep your inner self "protected". It should not suffer when you are hurt as a professional (due to failures or criticism). It is hard, but doable to some extent.

I have to admit that I was a little nosey and checked out your profile. I noticed that Academia was your only community.
I would suggest becoming more active on other communities. If answering questions doesn't interest you, then simply browse the unanswered, or even answered, questions. Sometimes you are just so focused on your particular area of study that you don't realize how much you truly don't know (no offense). This has helped me in the past. And, if nothing else, it is a way to learn about new topics and witness interesting conversations about them.
-- Start with checking out these questions: https://math.stackexchange.com/
Good luck!

I'm not a PhD student, so please take my advice with a grain of salt.
Fear is not always bad. After all, courage is doing things despite being fearful.
I have found that people have much more courage when there is a higher purpose to what they are doing. Please don't take this the wrong way, as I doubt a journal would publish research if it had little purpose. But inevitably some research will end up being more useful. Perhaps the fear is not your paper being rejected, but rather feeling that you haven't contributed to science. Make sure to properly identify what it is you fear.
If you are struggling to find purpose in your research, keep in mind that your knowledge of computer science could be extremely useful in other disciplines. Reach out to them as Tori suggested; maybe you could solve some of their problems. A recent example that comes to mind is a video by SmarterEveryDay, where they used a neural network to prevent kickback in circular saws. No research paper needed there! Although the litmus test is probably scarier than peer-review.
Think outside the box and keep an attitude of serving society. If you feel fear, remind yourself of the purpose of your research however abstract it may be.
Taking a different approach, fear and anxiety are interrelated and anxiety can be reduced with exercise. Assuming you don't already exercise enough, perhaps you could become more fearless by exercising more, although that's just a hypothesis. There are also drugs that eliminate fear, but it's probably best to stay away from those. At some point, fearlessness becomes recklessness.
I hope that was helpful.


text:
Can publishing on arXiv create copyright issues?
As an undergraduate I'm relatively new to academia. I was wondering if publishing a paper on arXiv could potentially be an issue if I were to want to get the same paper in, say, Nature, for why would Nature be okay with their material being openly available online? Isn't there a copyright issue here?

arXiv is not considered a "publication" venue, but a pre-print server. As such, most STEM journals explicitly allow its use, sometimes with caveats about citing or not citing the actual publication, allowing uploads before but not after journal acceptance, etc. Each journal has its own rules that you would have to follow.

Emphasize - each journal has its own rules. Those like Nature at the top of the heap might be especially picky. Ask them or find their policies online.

Nature especially states how pre-prints should be handled:

Preprints
Nature Research journals support posting of primary research manuscripts on community preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv.  Preprint posting is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at Nature Research journals.  [...] Authors posting preprints are asked to respect our policy on communications with the media (http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/embargo.html).
[...]
The original submitted version of the manuscript (the version that has not undergone peer review) may be posted at any time.  Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI, upon submission of the manuscript to a Nature Research journal.

Taken from Nature's webside about Publishing licences and compliance with open access mandates.
TL;DR You can post your pre-print on arXiv prior to its submission to Nature.
Important: These condition may not only vary by publisher but by journal/conference.


text:
What to do when advisor does not want to work together?
I have been a PhD student for 3 years (UK), and recently there has been severe trouble with the relationship with my primary advisor.
I had been struggling on a problem, for quite some time, with only very little advice or feedback aside from vague responses, and decided to try a related problem to see what could be done. There was quite a lot of success, and interesting developments, so I sent the early progress through and got encouraging feedback. So I continued down this track, and was clear to ask, "do you think this is publishable? what do I need to do in order to make this material publishable?" and so on. I got encouragement, so I continued and we built up a paper together and worked towards completing the thesis.
Now very shortly before my submission, he has told me that he recalls this was already done and so much time has been wasted as we cannot use this material. Now my shock was when I find out he was the first author of said research, with a prior PhD student doing this as part of his thesis.
I was absolutely furious (and bewildered) but I will be very clear, I made no negative comment. I went for a long walk and then took the day to think about what to do now.
I tried to ask what other work I could do, could I collaborate on other research he had going on, but got only a vague refusal. I asked for advice on how to proceed from here but got only vague suggestions. So I did what I felt was my only option and mentioned these issues to the panel because important things were going to be postponed. I made it very clear I had no personal issues with him and did not want to assign any form of blame, but that I needed some real help in a path to get some research progressing which I wasn't getting.
The next day he went on a furious rant which involved him calling me lazy in many different ways and telling me to go and work with someone else, that I cannot continue working with him.
At this point, I have only one member of the panel who is willing to work with me, but I have a primary supervisor who is very clear about not wanting any kind of working relationship with me, at least for the time being (which considering the time pressure I face as a student, means effectively that it is over).
What are my options here? I really feel that I did everything by the book, and I see this behaviour as a serious failure in supervision. I just don't know how a previous student's thesis gets re-researched. I certainly cannot rely on a reference from him to start a new PhD, and I don't know if I can continue when the relationship is this bad.

Could you specify country or general region? I'm not familiar with the use of "convener", "panel chair", etc, and these kinds of things can be very regionally specific. The non-regional advice is to inquire with the people you have a good relationship with about your options - specifically in changing supervisor/advisor, allowing you to cut direct ties with that person and move on without having to leave the department. Many people change advisors during a PhD, it happens - but regionally how funding/advisors/processes work varies a great deal.

he was the first author of said research, Please clarify: he was the only author? Any co-author?

2 authors. Other author a former student.

Excellent, thanks for the clarification - having a high-position person that you think you work well with can be a big help, and I suspect will be one of the most important people to have a sit down chat to ask for help on changing supervisors and working with someone else. But I have almost no knowledge of the realities on the ground in Australia, so hopefully someone can provide more tailored advice.

On the update about authorship - oh my, that does make the situation more serious, but could help to explain the behavior a great deal. Having a student work on a topic you already covered as a first author just 2 years ago suggests not only a large and weird screw up, but also suggests that maybe authorship on that paper was not handled properly either. This would tend to predict the supervisor will be hostile and flail around because they are trying to avoid having attention drawn to how they are acting in their role more generally. Allies in higher positions become even more important here.

How hard would it be to find a new primary supervisor? Actually, never mind; it doesn’t matter how hard it is. Find a new primary supervisor.

Something similar happened to me. Yeah, it's definitely a failure in supervision. There's no way out of this that results in a positive relationship with your supervisor. Find another one.

Since you want to go forward, rather than quit, you have only a few options. One is to find a way to get everyone, including yourself, calmed down and focused on the future. The other is to find a different advisor locally or at another university.
I don't think it is unusual to work on a problem for a while and have it end up with nothing. I've done that and so have many others. However, your advisor should have been more aware of the situation if the work had previously been done. But your literature search should also have turned up a hint of that, at least.
Maybe someone at your university can set up a "soothing the waters" meeting in which you all come to an understanding of the way forward for you. Focus on the future, not the past. If there is blame about the past, then it is likely shared. It is also normal for people to be upset, and your advisor may be acting badly because s/he is embarrassed about misleading you.
You probably need to have that meeting even if you want to move to another university so as to make it possible to get good recommendations. Nothing good will come from acting out of anger or in the presence of the anger of others.

"However, your advisor should have been more aware of the situation if the work had previously been done" He was the first author of this paper. This is why I'm upset that I asked him about the path forward and was told it was good. More so that I am trying to work together to recover from this and am not receiving assistance.
Thanks for the rest of the advice though, that sounds great. But he is extremely hostile to me at the moment, and I am struggling to heal this relationship.

I am sorry for your situation, I do understand how do you feel and it is a quite strange situation. However, you have to move forward and I do think the best advice mentioned is soothing the waters and try to change your primary advisor. A piece of advice, before performing ideas, you have to make up to date literature and scrutinize it very well and that is your job to find out whether your work has been already done. Anyway don't cry over spilt milk, and try to speak to one of the professors who you genuinely trust.


text:
What is the meaning of the terms "bimonthly", "semimonthly" and "quarterly"?
I don't understand the following terms in a journal where I am going to publish.
This is in reference to this series of journals.
What is the meaning of the terms bimonthly, semimonthly and quarterly as given in the above link?
Does it have anything with the time taken for peer-review process or anything?
Please help me to understand these terms and what they indicate?
Which one will be a better match to publish in if I have a time-constraint?

This is not really an academia question but basic word definition questions (that you could look up).

There's not necessarily a connection of issue frequency versus review/edit time.

It tends to refer to the frequency in which issues of the journal gets published. The issues may then be grouped into volumes in some other fashion. This "issue frequency" is usually not correlated with the duration of the peer review - it'll take whatever time it takes for your manuscript to undergo the process. However, once your manuscript is accepted, it gives you an idea of how long you might have to wait for it to be published. I suppose that, all other things equal, a higher frequency is preferable given a time-constraint.
As for the words themselves,

Bimonthly = every two months (but see this)
Semimonthly = every two weeks
Quarterly = every three months (once per quarter)

Actually, if you do an internet search you will learn that the terms are ambiguous - at least in usage. I don't know if all journals have coordinated their usage, but when people speak of them, you will get different opinions.
So, does bi-monthly mean twice a month or every two months. Opinions will differ, unfortunately.
Quarterly is almost always meant to imply four times per year. Maybe always.
But the more important question is how this affects review times. I doubt that it has any affect at all. A paper will take what it takes to get a decent set of reviews and an editorial decision.
More likely a journal with more issues per year than another, either has more submissions, or specializes in longer papers. If papers are long, there may be (in the print world) less room in a given issue for several papers. If papers are short there may be more submissions.
If you want a quick decision, write a shorter paper. Write a clearer paper. Write an exciting paper. Of course a terrible paper will also get a quick decision, but not one you'd prefer.