text:
Is there a difference between "interdisciplinary" and "multidisciplinary" research?
Going off of definitions on Google, it seems that interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary mean the same thing: relating to more than one academic discipline/branch of knowledge.
Is there a subtle difference between the two, in the context of academic research?

I think not, but perhaps other people have stronger feelings. I react to them as synonyms... not to mention that I'm completely unsure what "mono-disciplinary" would mean, anyway. :)  Some traditional presumptions and conceits about things obscure the facts and practices behind dubious language. :)

In practical (or cynical, if you prefer) terms, yes. There's a not-so-subtle difference in terms of citations: https://www.googlefight.com/multidisciplinary-vs-interdisciplinary.php

For a slightly less cynical view, look the two up in google scholar, there's some nice articles tryiing to compare the two, e.g. Jessup, R. L. (2007). Interdisciplinary versus multidisciplinary care teams: do we understand the difference?. Australian Health Review, 31(3), 330.

Both terms involve, as you say, relating to more than one discipline. In practice, I think most people don't really bother distinguishing between them. (I typically don't.) So one shouldn't read too much into any particular use. However, as always there are some that debate the definitions. Sometimes - especially when larger teams are involved - the two terms are treated not as synonyms, but as different positions on a spectrum. When a distinction is made, it is typically to say that interdisciplinary work more deeply integrates insights of multiple fields, whereas multidisciplinary doesn't require the same degree of integration. E.g. Choi and Pak states in a review that

Multidisciplinarity draws on knowledge from different disciplines but stays within their boundaries. Interdisciplinarity analyzes, synthesizes and harmonizes links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole.

Similarly, OECD's 2010 report "Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective" used environmental science and nanoscience as examples of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research areas, respectively (link to relevant page):

Interdisciplinary research that
relies on shared knowledge is created when fields such as physics and chemistry interact. Nanoscience typifies this
phenomenon. In multidisciplinary research, various disciplines address scientific and social challenges independently
rather than in collaboration and thus share research goals. Environmental research is of this type.

The 2015 The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry provides a lot more details and development of these ideas, in particular in Chapter 8.

Interdisciplinarians integrate the best elements of disciplinary insights in order to generate a more comprehensive (and often more nuanced) appreciation of the issue at hand. (This may come in the form of a new understanding, new product, or new meaning.) As we shall see later interdisciplinarians often stress "integration" as the defining element of interdisciplinarity.
[snip]
Multidisciplinarity involves the juxtaposition of insights from different disciplines. It thus eschews the integration that is so critical for interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Multidisciplinarians are also less likely to evaluate the insights on which they draw. Multidisciplinarity can still be useful in some situations, notably where the insights of different disciplines are not in conflict and can simply be added together.


text:
Difficulties with advisor inattention during MSc
I'm currently half-way through my graduate research program. I have two advisors, one that was supposed to be my main advisor (who
admitted me into the program) and a co-advisor. Over the past few months, I feel that my main advisor has all but abandoned my efforts.

We're supposed to have weekly meetings but the main advisor will
skip them every other week or so for various reasons. For instance, they skipped
meeting with me recently to continue to help another graduate student with making edits
for a final submission of a paper. I, however, had the same final submission deadline
and also needed assistance with making edits from reviewer comments.

Initially, I thought that the main advisor may have just been unusually busy for the year.
However, I learned that they will email the other two MSc students sometimes 3-4 times in a single
day with correspondence about ideas to try. That is, it seems that they are actively engaged in the other students' projects. Further, their meetings with the other 2 MSc students sometimes go for 3-4 hours or even late into the night.
Conversely, my meetings, if they take place, are ended at the hour.

The co-advisor still meets with me regularly but they have their own graduate students and so
I'm not sure that they prioritize my project. I feel this way because I almost always have to remind them what my project is about at the start of meetings.
I have some questions:

Should I communicate my concerns with them? If so, how do I communicate this without offending
them about their supervisory capabilities?
Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about being de-prioritized and this is a relatively
normal situation? Does that seem to be the case?

I would like to work on a PhD so I want to get the most I can from this degree.

Here are a couple of possible causes: (1) Your project is going smoothly, you are finding your own ideas, and your advisor thinks you need help less than your peers. (2) Your project is hopeless, so time spent helping you would be wasted. Any idea which?

don't say "they don't believe in my ability as a researcher", it's self loathe and may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As a supervisor of msc and phds myself, I think research skills can be learned. Are they pointing you towards resources at the university, like training on research methods? Do you think you lack those?
I add that weekly meetings are a luxury at my university, so maybe your supervision is working fine, and you may have just a bit of envy of the extra attention your peers receive? Or do you think your research is really suffering and struggling to progress?
I saw you've been thinking about possible reasons above, but I believe there are more explanations like (4), maybe the subject area of the other students is closer to what the supervisor does, so they have more to talk; (5) your area is more advanced than what they do so they don't know the methods and don't have much to contribute. I believe that you can talk to the main adviser openly about your concerns. You can directly ask them what they think about your research and where it's going. You can also ask about the frequency of the meetings. It will be a delicate conversation but it's better said and resolved than let accumulate. But the main question is, do you believe it's a good project? Is it interesting and innovative? Are you on top of the literature?
And grab the opportunity of writing that a publication, obviously it's very good for your phd application but also can increase the interest and frequency of communications with the current advisers.

Based on my experience and suffer I have now, I will strongly suggest you try another lab or even try to apply for a new university for your MS degree. I understand it is a hard decision (or you may think it is irrational or immature) for you now, but when I looked back, With the no or even wrong instruction given by the wrong professor, you will easily get in trap or trouble for science, and unfortunately, you might only enable to realize those problems after several years. Then everything might be too late. So trust me, if you still have time, change the lab. If you do not have time or are too close for the graduation, try to talk with your co-advisor as much as possible and try your best to make only one publication as perfect as possible. Then continue your academic life in a more productive lab with a more suitable supervisor.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I hide certain education history on my CV/resume?
Apologize in advance if it is not suitable for this site. I consider asking this in workplace exchange, but I think people on this site are more familiar with similar situation. For obvious reasons I open a new account to keep myself anonymous.
I am a last year Ph.D. student that will almost exclusively apply for industry jobs in the near future, and I have earned a master degree during my 2nd year in the program (FYI: In US people in Ph.D. program sometime obtain a master degree in the middle of the process, after passing some requirements). In other words, if I finish Ph.D. in the current program I will have a bachelor degree, a master degree and a Ph.D. degree just from the current institution and my undergraduate institution.
Many years ago, before entering the current program, I had another master degree in a different field that is the product of Ph.D. drop out (where, at least from my point of view, is due to getting abused/bullied. I burned the bridge on my way out, due to my attempt to report & confront.).
In this situation, does it make sense to omit that master degree on my resume, given that it looks somewhat weird and in most cases unrelated to the jobs I apply for right now and in the near future? The only reason I still include it is to seal the time gap on the resume, but I am afraid there is a little risk of people asking for references from the program I dropped out from (on my transcript it is stated PhD: discontinued). I am not sure if omitting and (if necessary) explaining the time gap could be a better strategy for the purpose of industry job applications than including and (if necessary) explaining the switch field (I'm not worry about explaining why new program fit my goal better, but worry about getting bad references).
Thanks for your answers in advance.

I'd say omit it. Every job application requires that you create a specific CV for that role. Otherwise you would have one CV only and mass spam all places. And the key phrase here is that the unfinished phd was "unrelated to the jobs I apply for".

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


text:
Is Relocating Necessary in Academia?
Despite experiencing a lot of drama and negativity at my university, I love my city and hate the idea of relocating. Sometimes I even think of reapplying there just so I could stay in this city (this is its only university) and still attend grad. school, but the negativity would be a lot to deal with. There's another program that seems like a good fit for me, but I think I'd be miserable in another city, even if I enjoyed the program itself.
However, is relocating a necessary part of academic life? For example, with the job market being so tight, I've heard that you have to be willing to move almost anywhere for a job. I've also seen posts where Ph.D. advisors suggest their students apply to specific post docs/jobs etc. Can you specify that you refuse to move from a specific city? Is it even realistic to pursue an academic career if you're not willing to relocate (perhaps even multiple times)?
Edit- I'm from the US

Many academic people are not happy with moving, but if one refuses, and there are no academic jobs within 300 miles, then you're just unemployed. You don't have to move, but at the same time you may not have a job, if you refuse. It is a conflict, yes. There is no resolution, I'm afraid, even if we tried to make things more humane. The closest thing we may manage to "humanity" is attention to professional couples...

With the exception of a few metropolitan areas, there is generally no more than one or two research university in the proximity, which mean there is not more than one or two departments that can hire you. Also, almost any decent program like to hire people with diverse experience (ie not people who were already there for a decade), and few academic subjects can be pursued nowadays without outside postdoc experience. A candidate who spent her/his undergraduate, graduate and post-doc years in the same place is a huge red flag for most hiring comity.

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

I'm suprised that many academics don't want to relocate. For example there are people who only target tier One research instutions and they don't accept any less

Hi, it looks like you're defacing some of your content. It's not okay to do that on StackExchange once people have put in the effort to answer your questions. There may be other options like dissociation (see https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remove-my-name-from-a-post-in-accordance-with-cc-by-sa) or account deletion (see https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/how-can-i-delete-my-account) but neither will remove the actual content (which is also saved in internet archives). Defacing your posts by editing just makes them more visible at the top.

There are exceptions in some specific fields (for example accounting) where corporate jobs are much more attractive than academic ones, but, in general, an academic considers themselves very lucky if they can find any academic job at all, let alone one in a particular city.

Since OP didn't name a specific country, I think you should mention the country you refer to (I assume USA), the job market is not that terrible everywhere (e.g. here in Czech Republic it is not great, but far cry from the USA horror stories).

@Martin Modrák can foreigners apply in Czech Republic

@SSimon Typically any national can apply to work anywhere in the world (except for certain jobs requiring specific clearances that may be restricted). Whether an organisation is willing to go through the potential visa hassle (for non-EU citizens in Europe for example) is another matter. I suspect that universities and research institutes in Europe are amongst the most diverse organisations in Europe with respect to nationalities overall.  (Including PhDs and PostDocs.)

@DetlevCM: Academia benefits in this regard from a culture where it's fairly easy to show individual accomplishments (e.g. published papers). Many countries consider skills not available nationally when granting employment visa. You see a similar diversity in corporate R&D, but that's because they often hire from academia.

@SSimon Yes, my institute has quite a lot of foreigners (including many non-EU).

@MartinModrák tenure track?

@SSimon the Czech system doesn't have a direct equivalent of "tenure" so hard to answer. I am expected to get a permanent contract after the one I have now if that's what you're asking for. Foreigners from all over the world can and do successfully apply.

@MartinModrák wow, so you have permanent contracts in Czech? salary wise is it comparable to rest of EU? many colleagues from UK after brexit found home in your country..

@SSimon Not sure this is a good place to discuss it, but I can't find a way to move this to chat. Yes, there are permanent contracts (the state imposes limits on temporary contracts in general). There is huge variability, but salaries are way worse than west EU in absolute numbers. On relative scale most positions I've seen are above average wage but not by much. We also have universal free healthcare of a decent standard.

Let's say you're completing your PhD in Underwater Basketweaving. If you're going to carry on in an academic career without relocating, you need two things to happen: first, the university needs to be looking to hire a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Underwater Basketweaving at just around the time you're ready to submit, and then you need to actually land the job.
The problem is, the university already has someone who does something rather similar to you - your advisor. Nobody needs two Professors of Underwater Basketweaving! So, you need them to leave, or at least be on the cusp of retirement, for a position to become available. Let's say that you get lucky, and something comes up. Then you have a second problem: there are lots of other bright young things in the field of Underwater Basketweaving. And from the committee's perspective, your job talk is all stuff they've heard before (because they're your colleagues!), whereas the external candidates have Exciting! New! Ideas! Oh, and Prof. Jones is still bitter that your former advisor got that corner office back in 1983, so will argue against hiring you. Your odds aren't good. That's not to say it never happens, but it's not something to bank on.
That said, plenty of people stay at their PhD institution in other roles: as technical staff, in research support, or in academic administration. So it is not necessarily all-or-nothing.

Indeed! Not to mention that having multiple degrees or degrees + faculty position is often negatively viewed as a sign of "academic incest"

Although the points here are valid they are easily circumvented by doing a strong postdoc elsewhere before coming back to your Alma Mater.

@ZeroTheHero Yes, it is sometimes possible to leave and then come back again later. However, that requires (at least) two relocations.

@avid Well I wasn’t thinking relocation included going for a few years of postdoc but you are technically correct.  I’m not 100% convinced of your argument on duplication.  If the university runs a center on underwater basket weaving they might well hire their best student to stick around and add to the critical mass.  But I think you are generally right, especially in smaller units where diversity helps with curriculum breadth.

One can work around this particular issue by being willing to relocate between disciplines, instead of between cities.

No, relocating is not necessary in Academia.
However, not being open to relocation significantly reduces your opportunities. In most cases, rendering them effectively zero.
With a huge competition for academic positions, one rarely can afford to lose openings in other cities/countries/continents—simply because the opportunities (academic community/research programs/grants/etc) that those positions offer outweigh (in their eyes, subjectively) the problems connected with relocation.
If for you relocation-related issues mean more—that's ok. Nothing wrong with that. You still might have something happening in your city. But it would not be productive to think that it must happen or that one is entitled to have the opportunity like that. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the reality is the way it is now.

Your first paragraph effectively contradicts the second.

@gerrit that was done intentionally; however, it is not a 100% contradiction. It gives an accent to the choice and one's own feelings.

It is effectively a contradiction to state that relocating is not necessary but that not doing so renders opportunities to effectively zero :)

The question does not specify a country or a discipline. This answer is from the perspective of the Nordic countries and mathematics.
The higher up you go, the greater the pressure to move
Getting a bachelor and master at the same university is very common. Continuing on to do a PhD there is completely normal. For a postdoc, one is expected to move, or maybe get a short one at the home university before finding a proper one elsewhere.
If you get serious funding you can maybe stay longer at your home institute, but getting a permanent position is very challenging.
Furthermore, many grants require experience at a "research environment" (other universities or research institutes being the typical way of achieving this) other than the one where one is intending to use the grant. International experience is also valued, but is usually not a hard requirement.
Some formal, but maybe not the informal, requirements can be met by extensive long-term visits to other universities.
More prestigious universities require more
If your home university is distant or not very good, or at least if your discipline there is not strong, they are likely less selective. Still, you would be a stronger candidate after having been elsewhere for a while.
Relocation teaches things
There is a different focus on research, sure, but also teaching and the social life of the faculty is likely organized in a different way. This broadens one's horizons.
It may be easier to move when younger
Commitments, such as children, partner (who can have their own commitments), old parents you need to take care of, ownership of a house or car or other such things, etc., make it harder to move. It might be a good idea to consider if the amount of commitments will increase or decrease with time.

Quite similar in Czech Republic - not all the world is USA :-). I know many people in reasonably senior positions that never relocated (but some changed institutions within the same city). The pressure is there and getting stronger by the year but it is not overwhelming, especially in less crowded fields that compete with industry for people (e.g. my area: computer science/statistics). I am 4 years post PhD, in a cosy, somewhat tenure-track position in a city I've lived my whole life in and even have offers for other academic positions here.

Something that some of the other answers are alluding to but not explicitly stating is that your home institution may purposely have a policy not to hire any of their graduates without good reason, not just when a spot in their domain is open or not. The intention is that by having done your education at that university under that faculty, you don’t bring anything new to the university. In essence, though this is obviously not 100% true, the idea is that your academic knowledge is a distillation of the knowledge of the current faculty. This policy is colloquially sometimes referred to as “academic inbreeding.”
There of course are always exceptions, ranging from an advancement of research focus since attending the university, to being a breakout star right out of the gate, etc.

Academic inbreeding can also be a symptom of nepotism.

Factors that increase probability of needing to relocate

living in an area with a low density of universities
living in an area with poor transport links
living in a country with a low population density
applying for jobs in a country where there is a culture of helping new employees relocate very proactively (e.g.: providing accommodation; spousal hire)
teaching-only or research-and-teaching positions (because you will be timetabled to teach classes on campus regularly, so it is harder to get away with living far away from your employer)
working in a lab-based discipline
working full-time (because full-time employees are expected to be available on any working day)

Factors that decrease probability of needing to relocate

living in an area with a high density of universities (because there are more jobs on your doorstep)
living in an area with excellent transport links (because it makes commuting to a distant university easier -- this is very common in the UK)
living in a densely populated country (because there are more jobs generally)
applying for jobs in a country without a culture of helping new employees relocate very proactively (in the UK, spousal hire is illegal, so employers are generally more sympathetic to requests for remote working due to "personal reasons"/"family reasons"/"two-body problems")
research-only positions (because it is easier to get away with not being on campus so much if you are not giving classes)
working in a non-lab-based discipline (provided you have access to a decent academic library within commuting distance of where you live)
working part-time (because you do not have to justify not always being available, provided you do not mind staying at hotels regularly)

"However, is relocating a necessary part of academic life? "
No. It is not necessary in any formal manner. It is however highly probable that in your career, if you want to have a reasonably good research career, you will need to relocate.
I do not know the precise probability (nor anyone), but my rough estimate would be something like 90% that you would need to relocate to have a good career in academia.
In fact, I have seen indeed only 1 out of 20 or so academics that got a lasting career in academia that have not relocated. (This may be even more rare in some fields.)

StackOverflow says that you are a new contributor and to be nice. So I won't say what I feel like saying first off after reading your post.
You have left a lot unsaid, I feel.
Unsaid about yourself, your field of study, your career intentions - even your nationality. I raise nationality as your approach to this question is not the usual US approach to such things. Even Europeans don't want to micromanage their career like you seem to want to. There's also a very strange deference to the viewpoints of senior colleagues - something that has gone by the board for decades in the western hemisphere. Maybe you are first generation Indian-American, Pakistani-American or Chinese-American and have been doing what your parents advise up to now. That excess regard for older people's views on your life decisions no longer washes in today's world. Believe me, the one thing you need to do in academia is to be your own man and trust in your own experience, your own analysis and your own decisions until events show otherwise. In other arenas like business, industry, even the professions, you can get by on group-think and following-my-leader. But the stark individualism of academia (in research moreover) makes it vital to determine your own perspective soon after your PhD starts. Mistakes made from your own analysis plus your own experience are honest mistakes. You shouldn't be too proud to make them or too embarrassed to acknowledge learning from them. So, love and respect your parents but make your own decisions. And try to respect faculty members' viewpoints on their field of expertise - but draw a line on their input to your career. I'd personally only listen to those professors who have shown that either (a) care for all students welfare or (b) care particularly for your future. But even here you must take the full responsibility and decide yourself.
I've also seen posts where Ph.D. advisors suggest their students apply to specific post docs/jobs etc. Can you specify that you refuse to move from a specific city? Is it even realistic to pursue an academic career if you're not willing to relocate (perhaps even multiple times)?
I feel that you are not telling us the full story here.
I get the feeling that your viewpoint on your career (perhaps even on life opportunities in general) may have prematurely crystallized. Your comments above betoken a  naive trust in a self-chosen 'orthodoxy' - albeit one occasionally supported by instances where a supervising academic may act with immoderate or ambiguous interest where an ex-student is involved - that isn't really the norm at all.
Let's get something straight here.
You're not going to get any interview or appointment on the back of playing your supervisor - however subtle an operator you may think you are. Even if you did it would be so much the worse for you: the high expectations of your new employer/supervisor and the likely lack of commitment on your own part having got the opportunity without real personal effort would soon lead to disappointment on the other side. Then where do you go ?
So, you may have read that Prof X suggests some internship/fellowship to student Y but this is very much the exception rather than the rule. And God help you, if you think you can specify the location of a job that you are prepared to consider your professor recommending you for then you are in cuckooland and damn well you know it ! On the last question, I know that some colleges appoint many of their ex-undergraduates and many of their doctoral students to their staff. As other posters pointed out, sometimes there is a brief low-level sojourn at another college until they 'return' to their alma mater. But look hard at the quality staff in your own college, even your own department. Not just faculty but those in support positions. There are always lots of foreigners among this group. In my own experience, the only genuine educators I met in my own country were foreigners. They were the ones who broke the old mold of bad curricula, boring lectures and mindless assignments and projects. Having got their positions mostly through familiarity with senior faculty, the native staff were naturally unwilling to appear disloyal by pushing for changes that they may privately have favoured. So I don't think it serves the students well to have faculty who are ex-students of that same college and certainly not also natives of that city. To me, a university's ranking for educational quality is synonymous with its commitment to new blood faculty appointments - the alumni just don't want the social hassle, if they care at all.
Despite experiencing a lot of drama and negativity at my university, I love my city and hate the idea of relocating. Sometimes I even think of reapplying there just so I could stay in this city (this is its only university) and still attend grad. school, but the negativity would be a lot to deal with. There's another program that seems like a good fit for me, but I think I'd be miserable in another city, even if I enjoyed the program itself.
You're saying 'drama' and 'negativity' but not what you mean by that. Drama in everyday life can be good, e.g. colorful characters, vigorous debate, horseplay or humor, or bad, e.g. personality clashes, bad feeling, psychological warfare, workplace politics and worse. Negativity can be as innocuous as a thickly conservative approach to all things or as soul-destroying as those individuals who dedicate every breath of their being to stomping down other people's sand-castles. If it's the latter end of these spectra, you know you have to go elsewhere if you want to have an academic career. Even if it's something less severe but still a drag on your humor and appetite for the workplace and those in it, you have  to go. Firstly for your own nerves' sake as events outside work will present their own problems and no one can fight wars on 2 fronts. Secondly (but to the wider community this is the primary reason) you owe it to others - particularly students and their hard-working parents - not take on a task on their behalf that you have no real zest for yet still choose to do just so you have a secure status in your home city. If you do, you'll become a part of that negativity and drama that you claim to dislike.
You have been in just one city and one college in your life - yet still fear the challenge of another. Don't dress it up as being content in this community and doubting if another city could provide that same sense of congeniality. Good cities don't allow bad colleges. The colleges are the one hope for social advancement in most cities. All the important questions about what's wrong in the local community are raised there, many by newly arrived faculty from other parts of the country or world who have experienced better organized situations elsewhere and ask why not here too.
The thing I just don't get here is how someone could aspire to an academic career but still not have a strong appetite for new experiences, new people, new opinions, ideas and most of all new cultures. Don't you ever get tired of the men or womenfolk in your home town ? Don't you ever get the urge to get off your ass and do something radical about it ?
Higher learning (i.e. learning not just for economic advancement) and relocation to new community have always been inseparable. Christ, even astrologers put both higher learning and distant travel into the 9th House with theology and philosophy.
If you want to be a serious academic, you've got to embrace this happily - otherwise you won't be positive to the spotty teenager asking the awkward question one frosty November morning in your first semester as assistant professor.
If you can't resolve this, you simply aren't cut out for this profession - it's just the security and conveniences of it that are attracting you.
EDIT
Gemini, having read this post I would categorically say that you have no future in your current college until you prove yourself elsewhere. And you know that this situation is entirely of your own doing. I also agree with others' point on getting some help on self-awareness, as opposed to awareness of others behaviour which you seem to analyse quite well.

I honestly don't appreciate bringing nationality/generations guesses and generalizations in your answer and would appreciate if you remove them.

@Trunk- I'm a caucasian American and a nontraditional age student wanting to go into a humanities field. I was deliberately vague about my field  because I've shared a specific situation with a professor, and it would be easy to figure out her identity if I shared the field or more specific info. My aversion to relocation is indeed because I love this city and not due to parental pressure. I'm also not originally from my current city and state, but I've been traveling here and have loved it my whole life, and I can't see myself living anywhere else.

Additionally, I fail to see how not wanting to move means that I'm not open to new ideas or don't appreciate other cultures.

Having a partner or people to care about (parents?) can also be a reason not to want to change cities. This is not something "bad" and does not mean that one is not open to new cultures. (Also, most of my foreign collegues (who are here for 1-2 years) do not learn the language, don't have any nonacademic friends -- they do not get to know a new culture).

@Anton Menshov - I raised nationality/ethnic background solely because of Gemini's excess deference to the opinion of his/her supervisor. Since this is very rare in most western students I think it is fair to speculate on this and to encourage Gemini to assert his/her own independence of decision.

@Gemini - You just miss the entire point about relocating. It's NOT like travelling. It's for real. A whole new permanent horizon that you have to engage with and find a place in, way away from your comfort zone. This is a challenge for sure. But I think it's in the same category of challenge as facing a whole new class (often including many foreign students) every fall. if you are up for one, why not be up for another ?

@user111388 - having a partner who is permanently located in a city is a reason why someone might want to remain there. As is having elderly or dependent parent(s). The partner situation is our own making and we all must find a solution to that without claiming any advantage over other candidates for appointments/interviews. Parental obligations are not something that any college can set precedents for in the case of new applicants - they already have enough personal situations to accommodate and really don't need more. In fairness, most colleges help existing staff-members with in hardship.

@Teunk: of course, collegues can not help in those situations. But you make it sound like "not wanting to travel" (which could be because of obligations) means "not open to new ideas" which means "bad researcher". This is not true.

@user111388 - But it IS a limitation with this would-be member of the faculty. As you say, there are other things. For one thing, a natural facility with teaching can heavily offset it. As can a proven capability in his/her research. These aptitudes are things that are independent of location. But my impression is that Gemini is capable of relocation - he/she just doesn't want to. That's what I don't get. And that's what makes me question his/her suitability for this vocation in the long run.


text:
Can One Poorly Written Research Paper Derail Your Academic Future?
I experienced a lot of stress and an episode of depression during my last undergraduate semester. The stress was caused by constant moving and housing insecurity for half the semester (giving me a late start on the paper) and the depression by learning of my professor being in the process of retirement/declining to be my graduate advisor (I don't have clinical depression).
I received an A- on a research paper in this class, but it was slipshod work, and (embarrassingly) probably one of the worst undergraduate papers ever written (written in a graduate level course no less). From a practical standpoint, can this ruin my chances of graduate school? I've already graduated and can't afford to take more undergrad. courses. Even if I could, however, how would I get another professor to supervise my research when I've already produced poor work?
Has anyone been admitted to graduate school/succeeded in academia despite a poor research paper? For what it's worth, I'm finally rewriting it, but second chances seem rare in academia.

FWIW I hadn't written a single research paper before graduate school

I wouldn't consider the comment about you grade being a "very good result" as meaning that she went easy on you. More likely she knew you have a tendency of stressing over imperfect grades or critical feedback and was assuring you that, despite the imperfect score and opportunities for improvement, your paper was overall "very good" and received a high score for that reason.  There's almost no chance she meant "this is a very good result considering how shoddy your work is." That's crazy amounts of projection from your side. Please get help for your anxiety.

For the curious: I have edited this a bit to remove some of the personally-identifiable information, then re-closed the question per the original close reason (to prevent it being added to a reopening queue).

Can One Poorly Written Research Paper Derail Your Academic Future?

No, it can’t. It sounds like you are catastrophizing. And in any case, if you got an A-, it’s extremely unlikely that your paper is poorly written. So as in the case of the advice I gave in the other linked answer, your excessive concern about ruining your academic career with a single small mishap is a much greater potential obstacle to success than the mishap you’re obsessing about. I suggest that you pay more attention to your mindset and mental state, and less attention to worrying about your work being slipshod despite external, objective evidence suggesting otherwise.
Good luck!

@CaptainEmacs: Correlation is not causation.  Many students do good work because they are not easily satisfied and hold themselves to high standards.  Catastrophizing, by definition, is a self-destructive level of worry about what will happen if those standards are not met.

@CaptainEmacs I’m not exactly sure what you mean. I’ve only known a couple of people who had a tendency to catastrophize, and neither of them were successful scientists. Of the successful scientists I know, many have perfectionist tendencies and a (related) tendency to criticize themselves and hold themselves to a very high (sometimes unreasonably high) standard, which is something that OP is also displaying here, but that’s a separate tendency that’s distinct from the tendency to catastrophize. Perhaps that’s what you had in mind, I’m not sure.

To the original question author: based on the feedback you got from your professor, as contrasted with your own stated feelings about the paper, I am concerned that your level of anxiety is really excessive here. You even self-describe as sounding 'neurotic' ("psychotic" doesn't seem accurate, but "neurotic" seems right on.) Are you in therapy or otherwise seeking treatment for anxiety? If not, have you considered this? Truly, from what you have written here, your problem is "excessive worry", not the paper. I know that "you need therapy" is often unwelcome feedback, but please reflect on it.

@GlennWillen If you observe past posts by OP, you'll see a history of this. It is concerning to the health of OP that OP wants to pursue a PhD given the degree of anxiety/depression/lashing out that has occurred just as a result of undergraduate studies. At this point, I am beginning to wonder if the SE community is enabling this behavior.

@DanRomik Yes, that's what I meant. I am not sure where I would put the threshold at which one would use this word, but some of these people were quite at a high level of insecurity. In artists, this is a well-known phenomenon and often coincides with extraordinary levels of performance.

Most of the time, perfectionism results in better work. In my case, however, the problem was having difficulty concentrating due to depression, so even if the paper wasn't as bad as I thought, it definitely wasn't impressive. However, maybe it won't
impact my grad. school prospects after all. I appreciate the reassurances.

I want to add that the professor was unaware of my depression. I couldn't tell her that I was depressed over her retirement, and I don't have a clinical diagnosis of depression, so I was worried about how she'd perceive me after that paper.

"No, it can't" I think it could, but this case it won't. For instance, if you wrote a paper advocating pseudo-science or politically toxic ideologies, that could do it.

I agree with Dan Romik -- I think you're worrying way too much! It's not entirely clear whether this paper/preprint has been published or if it's just part of your course?
If it's just part of your course, relax. You're a student and an A- is fine. If you've published a paper/preprint, that's a positive. Most people will be more impressed that an undergraduate took the initiative to publish than the quality of their work.
Although it's sad that your advisor is retiring, you could look at the situation positively. For example, you could apply to programmes at different institutions. Having a record of success across multiple institutions/work environments is often an advantage.
I know an excellent physicist who scored 40% (terrible) on a couple of their 3rd year undergraduate papers -- that's way worse than you. It's not a big deal. Most people do badly on an odd exam/practical/whatever. The main thing is your overall degree score. However, even that will stop mattering much once you have a graduate degree.

This was a course paper, and I received an A in the course (the A- was only on the paper). However, I wanted to impress the professor and worried about what she thought of me after this paper (and whether she'd write a lor). Even with a high GPA, not having strong LORs, I thought, could ruin your chances of grad. school.

@Gemini I've never worried about LORs. They're only part of your applications, like your CV and academic record. I don't think it matters as long as they are positive and it's in your advisor/department's interest to write positive LORs as they should want you to succeed.

@Gemini We cannot judge your papers or your work, from what you tell us, it sounds of reasonable quality, by no means a career-killer. But what's clear - your extraordinarily elevated worry level is going to do a lot more damage to you on the long run than a single not-quite-as-good paper. Don't shift it to a messed-up paper, to the prof, to misunderstandings, to this or that. You must tackle the core issue.


text:
Getting no responses from professor
I decided to pursue a PhD degree after a few years in industry, so I contacted a professor from the university where I had received my Diploma a few years back. We had some conversations, she was rather positive as I had good grades and I used to attend her lectures.  I could not apply officially yet, since the PhD applications start during summer. As coronavirus came, we all stopped going to the lab.
I emailed the professor about 10 days ago about how to proceed. However, I did not get any answer. Is it possible that she changed her mind about having me work in the team as a PhD candidate, since we had no communication for around 1 month?

Why is this your only option to re-enter academia?

Are you still planning to study in Greece?

This is an unprecedented time in academia, and your best course of action is probably to just wait awhile for your professor to catch up on his emails.
As a professor myself, I have several emails left over from the just-ended spring term that I need to respond to.  My college announced that there will be cuts to staff, which haven't been finalized yet, so it's possible I won't even be employed here next term.  My kids' school and daycare are closed, so on top of childcare I might have a couple of  hours each day to do work-related things.  And I don't run skype anymore since discovering other, better options, so if anyone in my old skype contact list is contacting me, I wouldn't know about it.
In other words, if your professor's work-life situation is anything like mine (and many, many of my colleagues at other institutions, judging by their social media posts), he just hasn't gotten around to your email yet.  It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on his thoughts about your graduate application.  You've got until July for applications, so give him another week and then try emailing him again with a polite "just in case you missed this" nudge--that usually does the trick.

This has to be a guess since I don't know the person, but I suspect that the prof is just busy with things and sees this as low priority since applications don't start until July. It may be that they have decided not to work with you, but I doubt that they would ignore your emails in that case. Much more likely that you would get a response.
Ten days isn't very long, actually, but it is long enough that a follow up would be OK. "I am very interested in continuing to work with you, .... trying to plan my next moves ... any possibility ..."
It is easy to ignore cold applications, but that isn't the case here.

@mar93: You could try calling his office number (which you should be able to get from the university website). Talking one to one can sometimes be more effective than via text. One advantage of calling his office is that you have a reasonable implicit excuse to call multiple times a week (maybe he was not in the first few times).

"Because pandemic" my university office number is forwarded to an inexpensive VoIP line I had installed at home for that purpose.  I suspect I'm not alone.  Before that arrangement, I had my university voice mail set up to send email, so, although I couldn't answer the phone, I got messages quickly.

@user21820 You could try, but I don't know any professors who monitor their phone (as everyone is used to answering emails on their own schedule).

@AzorAhai: Office number usually rings!


text:
Should I contact potential recommendation letter writers if I only have vague plans about applying for a PhD?
I might, or might not, need letters of recommendation for a PhD application in the future. My plans are vague, I am just finishing my master's and planning to work for a while before deciding.
There are just a few people who could write a letter about me that doesn't just say "they did well in class". I would like to keep the option of asking them for one, even after being out of academia for a year or two (still doing research as part of my job).
I would also like to know how strongly they would be willing to recommend me. I worked with them on only one project. Even though they gave me very good feedback, I imagine they might not remember me well enough to write a good letter if I ask them after a long time. We work in somewhat related, but very different, sub-fields of computer science.
Should I contact them now, without having a clear plan in mind, and ask if they would be willing to recommend me in the future? Is it just a waste of their time if I don't yet have anything concrete to ask for, or any precise plans or institutions to mention?

This is easier if you can have a face to face meeting. Tell them you are considering it and ask for their advice, and especially about your likely success. If they seem supportive, you can say that you aren't quite ready but would probably want a letter from them in the future.
For a supportive prof they would possibly make a few notes to themselves about what to say before they forget your face and accomplishments. Professors see a lot of people and some things start to run together after a while. But after the heads-up they are, perhaps, more prepared to write a supportive letter.
But it is much less effective if you have to do this by email or such.
And if they seem discouraging, then there is probably no need to ask, thought they may still have valuable advice about how to prepare yourself.
I've had to ask students, looking for recommendations, to remind me of a few of our previous interactions if it has been a few years since we last spoke.

I would be honest with them and tell them that you're considering applying to schools at a later time but aren't sure where yet and ask if you can contact them in the future. I think that would go better than just randomly contacting them a year or more later and may make them more likely to remember the request.
If they gave you very good feedback, then you'd probably get a strong letter from them describing your work on that project and class performance. The number of projects they worked with you on is less important than the quality.
Also, when you write to them, remind them of which classes you had with them and the project you worked on. This should trigger their memory if they didn't recognize your name right away.
Good luck!

Thanks :) Just a detail: I didn't take a class with them, and we didn't interact outside of this project, they actually are researchers in a national lab and not professors. I guess it doesn't change your answer much.


text:
How does someone become a professor who makes break throughs at creating Artificial Intelligence rather than merely analyzes data with known methods?
How does someone become a professor who makes break throughs creating Artificial Intelligence through deep learning rather than someone who merely knows many ways of analyzing data and write reports?
I want to be the person who made the break through of finding how to do image recognition with high accuracy rather than someone who simply runs image classification algorithms or applies it to a new problem after its invented.
A lot of the data science/statistics professors I know merely analyze data, increase accuracy by a couple of percentage points, but don't really change anything big because they didn't figure out how to generalize the methods to a broader set of things or eliminate some big hurdle to making an AI.
I want to draw the fine line between data analyst, and AI creator. The latter knows everything the former knows but can make machines more or as powerful as humans and pushes the limits of the math and computers.
Some people are merely satisfied with having one dataset analyzed, and settle with not having the algorithms create AIs and I'm not even sure how to classify or figure out who are the ambitious professors who are trying to make breakthroughs in AI versus are just settling with what's already created.
I'm starting to realize the phrase "data scientists" is just a fancy phrase for someone who knows a lot of methods and applies it to write conclusions about data and isn't someone who knows how to make cars autonomous. They're really not very interesting especially if a company is just using them to punch buttons with tensorflow compared to someone who actually knows how to make a leap.

I think you are pretty confused about how the AI field works.

Are you suggesting the field is a lot less exciting than I think it is? We're still pretty far away from having 100% accurate video-recognition and autonomous decision making? And even if I had a PhD in AI, I'd be pretty disappointed all day becuase there's not much I can do to make autonomous cars work?

Find someone who does what you consider to be successful research. Look at their career and research paths. Repeat until you find trends.

If you want to make autonomous cars work, that would put you in the category of making incremental 1-2% increases in accuracy that you seem to find uninteresting. Science is incremental; there are bigger leaps that occur but these are still often incremental at heart.

The problems is the 1-2% increases in accuracy are sometimes tuning the hyperparameters, and they spent an entire paper talking about how to increase accuracy on one dataset, and the tuning only works on a specific limited generalizability problem that they haven't solved anything. Change the data, and the accuracy is bad again.

Minsky's summer project comes to mind: "Solve the problem of image recognition."

@Numbers In AI, the boundaries between science and engineering are fuzzy. The paper you mention is probably more on the engineering side. Learning Theory, for instance, is more on the science side. Good work is done there regularly, but of course, you do not have an MCTS or deep learning discovery or rediscovery every day.

People typically don't become experts overnight. A breakthrough is not done in a single day. New ideas are built on top of a vast knowledge across many disciplines. Professors and other experts have broad and deep knowledge of the subject, but also, importantly, they engage with the subject in many roles: they study the existing knowledge, they test and apply it, they create derivatives, they challenge aspects of the existing knowledge, they teach it, they transform it, they combine it with something else. A new design without applications is useless. A routine application of the same technique is boring. One need both to design new approaches and to promote them to applications in order to be successful in academia.
Now to your main question - how to become such a person. With baby steps. Make yourself a goal for a day, for a week, for a month and for a year. If you are a college student, it may be to complete a homework, to learn a new data analysis technique, to complete a course, and to submit an application to a University of your choice. Then work towards these goals. Good luck!


text:
Review articles - Would it be plagiarism or misconduct if "implication" not added?
To write a review, does the author must find some "implication" over the papers it based on?
Example-1:
Suppose author 1 has a theory or a proposal or framework but the language is unclear, not very comprehensible, not pointwise. Author 2 did a lot of improvement by adding short notes, definitions, points, illustrations etc; but all are to reflect the sayings of author 1 (not even a single new implications over author 1). Author2 gave proper reference to author1.
Would the author 2 be convicted of plagiarism/ some other academic misconduct?

Example 2 :
Suppose another situation, Author 1, 2 and 3 has some publications, containing various informations (say respectively information ABC, BCD, CDA)
Author 4 compiled all those informations, also summerised and simplified the language, but again; no new implication is added. Author 4 gave reference to author 1, 2, 3.

Would author 4 be convicted of plagiarism/ someother misconduct due to not having "new implications"?
.................................
Prior study: I have read the wikipedia article on Review article and for Plagiarism. Apparently the wikipedia article on review article says

"A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic."

But everyone in person I ask about it, emphasise on

ideas of where research might go next

or some other "implication".
Now my question is; is it absolutely a prerequisite to have a new implication if to write a review?

You are mistaking a variety of concepts. "Plagiarism" is if you use someone else's text or figures and present it as your own. "Copyright violation" is if you use someone else's creative contribution (say, a page of text, or a piece of music) and you replicate it for any other use than what the author gave you permission for (e.g., you copy a chapter of a book and give it to your students, or you play a CD in a public performance without the publisher's consent).
None of the examples you present fall in this category. They're not academic misconduct.
What might, however, happen is that you write a paper that is legal in all regards but otherwise has nothing new in it that anyone might find interesting. For example, a paper that just says "A did this [1] and B did that [2]. Then C did a variation [3]." is rather boring: What's the added value that a reader can't figure out by themselves? Such a paper is legally all fine and good, but will unlikely be published.

There are many such papers. They are called tutorials/comments (case 1) or reviews (case 2) and they can be quite useful. In the first case, the second paper may become more cited than the first, because it is more accessible and easier to read. As long as all citations are clear and it's clear that the idea comes from author 1, this is a welcome addition and service to science (assuming they really improved clarity and quality of the exposition).

As long as you properly cite the work on which yours is based it isn't plagiarism. As long as you quote properly (clear indication, observing limits) it isn't copyright infringement.
But without some sort of conclusion or statement of implications it has little value and would be unlikely to be publishable other than as an extended bibliography. (Sometimes extended bibliographies have some value, actually, though they don't add to a body of work. But in such cases they tend to be extensive and/or comprehensive)
But, no, plagiarism would only come in to it if you attribute ideas of others to yourself, either by copying or paraphrasing.
The worst you would be "convicted of" (strange concept here) is being boring.


text:
How to negotiate a tenure-track assistant professor job offer in a very short time window?
I was just offered a tenure-track (60% teaching, 40% research) assistant professor job offer at a R1 University in the Southern U.S., but asked to make a decision in only three days. And he also mentioned there is no much room for negotiation.
This is a very special situation. The search process for this position has been dragged for quite a long time due to the COVID-19. They interviewed two other candidates 5 months ago, but did not pursue their candidacy. My interview with the university is for another position in the same department. I am not picked for what I was interviewed for, but instead selected for the earlier position that has not been filled yet. Very interesting and very lucky!
I want to seek any advice on the negotiation (e.g., start-up package, salary, starting date) if possible, given such a short time. I am not sure if I should do this or not since I was told no much room for negotiation.

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

While the decision to accept a tenure-track position is a big commitment, unless you have complicated requirements that were not discussed with the search committee/dean beforehand, it should be possible to make a decision on an offer within a few days.

I want to seek any advice on the negotiation (e.g., start-up package,
  salary, starting date) if possible, given such a short time.

Think about your red lines and try to prioritize them: how much startup do you need, your preferred salary and starting date, teaching load, etc. and if the current offer doesn't meet these – you mention that there is not a lot of space for negotiation – you may prepare a counter-proposal asking for what you want but focus on the those points that are most important. If you cannot arrive at an offer that meets these requirements, politely decline the offer.
Of course, if you surprise your negotiating partner (dean, head of dept., etc.) with a request that they weren't aware of, such as the need to renovate/construct lab space or a two-body situation where you're looking to secure a position for your partner as well, it might be impossible to have an answer from the prospective employer's side within a few days (some requests might need to be escalated to senior management or discussed with other departments/faculties). Your employer will tell you this, and if they really want you, they'll give themselves and you more time to complete the negotiation.
Don't expect to be able to re-open a negotiation after you have signed an offer. If you do have second thoughts, your only alternative might be to walk away. If you accepted the offer but then, on reflection, decided it was not for you and decided not to actually start the job, you wouldn't be the first (or the last) person to do this. Unless there are penalties in a contract (read the fine print), there's not much a future employer can do to you if you decide to re-neg on the contract. Be aware though that in some circles walking away from an accepted offer could damage your reputation – your future colleagues will know you did it – so I do not really recommend this course of action.
Finally, you mention that you are being offered a position that is not the one you applied for, so if you have a complicated ask (see above), one negotiating strategy could be to ask to be re-considered for the other position (if it has a longer timeline). Above all, be polite and positive, and keep the door open for future opportunities if you think this one is not going to work out and you like the employer.


text:
Should I Disclose Mental Health Conditions to a Potential Advisor Before Applying to the Program?
I suffer from anxiety, and this condition has led to some situations that hurt my relationships and reputation at my undergraduate institution. Anxiety also affects me in other ways -- for example, I fear flying.
Now I want to apply to graduate school for a master's degree. At what point should I disclose my mental health conditions? It seems like my advisor would need to know about some or all of my history, and best case, they could use this knowledge to provide better advising. But it could also mean that my preferred advisors would decline to advise me at all.

I fear flying.

Nearly all PhD students go to conferences.  They usually go there by flying.  There is no way to hide that you fear flying.  Therefore, I suggest disclosing so that your advisor can arrange for your to participate in conferences without flying.  Disclose before you enroll, and find out if your advisor can help you be successful before you enroll.
Should you disclose before you apply?  It depends.  If you can disclose in a way that shows you will be successful in the program (e.g. "Following treatment, my symptoms are improving so I expect my future achievements will be better than my past achievements...") that may increase your chances of admission.  Show you have a plan for success.  If you disclose and indicate you cannot be successful in the program, then you probably will not be admitted.  But why would you apply if you cannot be successful?
Anecdote:  One of my colleagues disclosed a fear of flying to me when he was a PhD student.  He is now an assistant professor.  He does fly from time to time.

Flying or not flying has nothing to do with your competence as a scholar. Nothing. FWIW, I don't fly either, but just because it has become so incredibly painful to do nowadays.

A bit different from the other answer.
Do not disclose any mental health trouble. Disclose you fear to flight only when you are successful enough to envision your attendance to conferences and not at any earlier stage.
When eventually it will happen, present your fear as very focused fear and do not mention anything else.
I can't think of any real trouble as far your PhD is concerned.
Do that when and if necessary in a strict way.
Your supervisor or a coworker can present the work on your behalf if a particular conference is strategic for the group/supervisor.
As already said by others there will surely be a conference that you could attend without flying.
Consider that, yet and unfortunately, attending overseas conferences is still difficult for many people in the academy worldwide. So it won't be particularly problematic for your supervisor to only "send" you to locations reachable by train.

A supervision/PhD student relation is not a regular job. Quitting it when things do not work out is painful, difficult and sometimes seriously career and confidence-damaging. It is better for OP to be upfront, because if the superviser discovers it too late, expectation may not match up and the damage can not easily be reverted. This is bad advice. You want a supervisor that OP can convince that they do good work, despite the condition because the condition is part of OP's makeup, there is no denying it; and it has real consequences as the other questions of OP has shown.

@CaptainEmacs, actually this is good (great) advice. There is no need to reveal it. It is a personal thing. If it becomes an issue in the future then you deal with it then, either by revealing it or taking alternate action as appropriate. Don't project the anticipation of problems in such situations. Mental health issues are a matter between you and a doctor/therapist. It isn't an academic consideration.

@CaptainEmacs having witnessed many PhD I can't think of one failing because one doctoral student refuse to flight. That is the meaning of my answer, taking what Buffy said as as the ground.

@Alchimista I did not comment on the flight, that's a minor issue. I commented on your first sentence "Do not disclose any mental health trouble". This trouble is going to be very visible (see the other mails by OP. It will consume a significant proportion of the supervisor's time. They should know ahead of time. A single problematic student can easily eat up 70% of the total time a supervisor allocates to their students. Or else, the supervisor cuts them loose, and that's also something you don't want.

@Buffy In principle, if it has no effect on their environment or OP have enough control over it to shield their environment or to prepare them of how to deal with it, I would completely agree with you. OP, however, has - and here the history plays a role - had a chain of past incidents where it did spill over to their environment in multiple phases, creating significant distress. Unless it is clear that it will not repeat, there should be a signal of reflection by OP that they are working on keeping things under control. And I do not see it. The supervisor is in for a bad surprise.

@Captain Emacs. Uh I see the situation. I therefore let my answer stand here for a general audience and for whom might indeed suffering a precise, punctual phobia. As far as the OP is concerned I can only suggest him/het to ask the same question to the professional(s) who follow him/her. This is already out of the Academia scope.

Anyway one does not get any benefit in disclosing mental health issues. He she will be refused the position in a way or the other. Mental health in adults is to be disclosed to medical personnel only. There is little to gain and a lot too loose.


text:
When you cite a paper, is it a good idea to email the cited author(s)?
Inspired from this question, I think the reverse can be an interesting discussion so I will set up an artificial example.
Suppose I cite XYZ in a published or under review paper. I am not affiliated or have had past contact with the author(s), so we are personally unknown to each other. This can also include a passing chat in a conference/ seminar, but certainly not something regular or memorable. For ease, let us assume that the citation is of some importance, i.e. it is a key paper and my work relies on it, or the results/ methodology are related. This, therefore, excludes "lit review" or "professional/ courtesy/ standard" citations. My intentions are honest: I genuinely intend to say "thank you, your work is good and it helped me a lot, feel free to contact me in the future" and do not intend to trade citations, disguise a suggestion (Trojan horse) or have a hidden agenda. I would be happy to discuss further, or end up working with XYZ in the future, but the purpose of the email is not that.
Given the above, is it good practice to politely email, Tweet or PM the author(s) with something along the the following lines?

I found your paper XYZ to be interesting and relevant to my work, and I cited it in my recent paper ABC. My paper is related to yours in Way 1, Way 2 and Way 3. I believe you would be happy to know that a colleague found your work to be useful and I took the liberty of contacting you. Please consider me open for future contact and feel free to email me with any thoughts you may have.

If yes, when is that true? Conversely, under which circumstances can such an email be seen as unprofessional, impolite or suspicious? Are such emails considered sound academic/ professional practice, or is there a danger to be misunderstood, appear offensive or seen as having other intentions? Basically, is it a good idea or will it backfire spectacularly?

I think emailing authors when you find their work particularly interesting or useful is nice, and I'm sure everyone loves to recieve such emails. However, I don't think citation has anything to do with it. That said, I don't think I would ever find it "unprofessional" or suspcicious to recieve such an email.

I agree with this answer. However, I think the risk is quite high that such an e-mail will be unnoticed between the vast amount of other, similar e-mails which are fake, especially if the recipient does not know the sender.

I'd worry that you'll come across as trying to obsequiously ingratiate yourself with potential journal referees.
Yes: if you come across relevant prior work you should contact those authors, but you should do that with the aim of having a substantive discussion as early as possible, ideally while you can still incorporate any suggestions into your own project. There shouldn't be any expectations of citations by either party.
With certain types of citation - a "Personal Communication", grey literature or preprint - there may be a reason to contact that author when about to submit your own paper, but in general I think waiting until the last moment - as you seem to be suggesting here - to contact those likely to be considered for refereeing your paper will come across badly and possibly cause conflicts of interest.
Your citation will act as its own reward. If you want to contact people for some other reason, do so for that reason.

Thank you for your answer. Just to clarify, in my example the paper has already been published, or is under review, i.e. a referee has already been appointed in the 1st/ 2nd round. I agree with your point if this is a first submission, and there are conditions where that also holds for papers under submission, but that is not what I described. Have I read your answer correctly?

You wrote "Suppose I cite XYZ in a published or under review paper." I think that until it's fully accepted you are potentially causing a conflict of interest (by revealing your identity to anonymous referees). Soon after that, your paper's published, they get possibly notified by an alerting service, and their citation count increments anyway. So I'm not sure how much that email adds - though that's a personal thing, I suppose.

It is not practical to email authors you cite; nevermind the fact that some may have left, may be retired or deceased.  Plus, if you have many citations it would be a burden to do just this.
What is more practical is to email select active authors, with a copy of your manuscript. I would let these authors draw their own conclusions as to how your work related to theirs.  Thus:

Dear Prof. Suchensuch,
  Please find enclosed a copy of my most recent manuscript on this topic.  I am aware of your recent results in the field and I hope you will find my contribution of interest.
  Kind Regards etc.


text:
My new supervisor wanted to collaborate with my ex-supervisor who bullied and destroyed me
I was in a lab since two years ago for a PhD and I wasnot lucky since I had faced bullying and all the bad things you could imagine. I left one year and for the bad luck I thought that this would be end, however, I got hired for a new PhD and for irony that wanted to use a software where I had learned since I was there and my ex-supervisor is also well known in our field.
I had another PhD student who literally makes things out of the thin air, he make up things and since I know the topic very well, I know he is a sketchy understanding, but my new supervisor is not really expert in that point in particular. This student brought the idea of collaborating with the guy and tried to make contact with my ex-supervisor.
I felt I am destroyed.I told my new supervisor that the relationship of my ex-supervisor wasnot got to me, and he was quite okay with that, however, after two weeks this PhD student persist on including my ex-supervisor although I am aware of the topic,  this student ignore all what I said for suggestions and is so welcomed by my new supervisor which baffles me. Next week they will have a meeting and this so much pressure to me.
I dont know what to do again! I felt the most unluckiest person on this planet, moreover I am a girl from underrepresented community.
I think this the last shot, my academic aspiration is doomed, I am tired. I dont know what I can do again?

Whose PhD project is this? If it's the other student's project, you can always decide to withdraw from it for personal reasons. If it's yours, the other student has no business inviting people to it, and you can tell them that you will pursue the project without them.

Unfortunately! This is European project and we have to contribute in the same project, I feel hopeless.

Your PhD project does not have to be the project that provides your funding. You can do a minimal amount of work for the latter, and focus on developing your own, independent PhD project.

It is in Europe and they have the funding for the project, not like US. You have to work in that subject.

I'm Europe-based and have a good bit of relevant experience. What I wrote before reflects my experience. Your PhD topic is a matter of negotiation between you and your PI. EU projects need to show some results, but if the other student drives that work, well, good for all of you.

"but if the other student pushes that work, well, good for all of you." It is not relevant to my case as in the end of day I am stuck and as I said he is making stuff out of the thin air.

I don't see how this relates to my point.

See related previous post, which was closed as unclear.  https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149329/nightmare-ex-professor-haunt-me-in-my-new-phd

If you feel hopeless, you need to speak to a mental health professional.

What will happen depends a lot (too much) on the good will of your new supervisor. But you have to avoid getting trapped again even if you aren't in a good will situation.
You will need to insist to your new supervisor that you cannot work with the old one based on past interactions that you found destructive. Also inform the supervisor that you find the actions and attitudes of the other student to be very unhelpful and that pressuring you isn't going to resolve anything.
Sadly, I can't predict that the outcome will be positive, since I don't know anyone involved here. But, you might also have to consider that you need to find a new situation altogether if the new supervisor turns out to be unsupportive.
But don't make a point of discussing your view of the competence of the other student. That is for others to judge and raising it won't help your case.
You need positive supervisor support and you need to not have to deal with social pressure. The pressure of research should be plenty.

Thanks Buffy! This is my third time at try the PhD and I thought this time would be the salvation. I will not try to mention the  student competence, but the problem is the supervisor appreciates him alot for instance when I am sharing my work which in the same area of the other studnet, he always not commenting, while the other student posts wishy washy results this supervisor engage. I have the feeling that since I  told him he took an impression might be not good. I am literally exhausted.

@Erik You mention here this one is your 3rd try at a PhD. I do not know whether it is pertinent to your case, but why did the 1st try (the one that involved neither your present nor your bullying supervisor) fail? Maybe there is something in your strategy that needs fixing, for this we might need to know the backstory.

After leaving the first one, I didnot find a place to accept me, I traveled to an isolated ciountry in europe with very low payment I stayed six months desparately looking for PhD position. Thanks to my ex-supervisor he said you will never find a position. After six months I got accepted in a program at Europe as well and I thought that would be great, however, the people I worked with are not well known in the field, I accepted out of desparation and BTW in the same area of my research

My supervisor at the second one has zero knowledge what is the project about, I didnot mind I just worked hard and by the time gone, there is no materials and everyone from the project was complaining, the project coordinator was ignorant and didnnot want to help and she was horrible to lead the project.

I am hosting kind of famous tec chat in my field and thats why my new supervisor know about me and offered me this position he knows that my second PHD Where I spend one year didnot have any materials to work on.

Maybe will not believe, but I spend 1 year, 6 months cheap labor, 1 year another program accepted it out of desperation and then leave to a third one where it turned they want to cooperate with the main root.

@CaptainEmacs I think most of the story is documented at this SE site actually, except posted from a number of different accounts at different times (and some of it may have ended up being deleted again).

@TobiasKildetoft, yes that is true and that why I think maybe I am the problem because I have never seen anyone in my situation. I think my academic career is doomed.

It may not be you. Unfortunately some people think they can just dominate "a girl from underrepresented community".

"Unfortunately some people think they can just dominate "a girl from underrepresented community". ---Yes, of course, especially if that girl's name is Erik!

@Dilworth, perhaps you missed the next-to-last paragraph of the question, from which I was quoting.

@Dilworth I am a female.

Yes, of course, we all read the OP. I was just noting the peculiarity of a female  nicknamed Erik. Of course, everyone is entitled to freely pick their own name/nickname.


text:
My supervisors want to make me finish my Ph.D. in 2 years. What can I do?
After finishing my M.A.Sc. in Canada, I had been interviewed with my current supervision team in my current Swiss university to start a Ph.D. In that time, it was fairly obvious that the project I was supposed to work on would not prolong for whole four years. In the course of those interviews, particularly, my co-supervisor (whose financial resources supports my studies) had asked my what I would do if the project finishes sooner than what my Ph.D. deserves. I had answered that I would find a broader problem statement to generalize the solution to the (theoretical) aspects of the project. He had said nothing when he had heard it.
I just started my Ph.D. on Oct. 31st, 2018, and I defended my proposal in the Oct. 2019 becoming a Ph.D. candidate. In that proposal, whose content were fully known to both of them, I had noted the main problem statement of the project, as well as another as an extension (to work on one the main project is done). Before the candidacy exam, I was pretty productive not only in terms of the progression of the project but also in view of my publications (3 proceedings and 2 journal papers, 4 other journal papers are also under review now).
Today, I just received an email from my supervisor stating that he and the co-supervisor has discussed my case, and they think that I better finish my Ph.D. by the end of this year. He said I may later consider the extension problem statement, only if I can find some money to support myself in a potential post-doc period. He has fixed a zoom call for the Monday to discuss that with me in the presence of my co-supervisor. He also sent me a line of the law associated with the doctoral school of my university to support the validity of their standpoint:

Ordinance on the doctorate at XXX, art. 9, pt 2. As a general rule,
  the subject must allow for the thesis to be completed within a
  four-year period from the candidate's official enrolment date (October
  31st,  2018 in your case), with a minimum required period prior to the
  oral examination (Art. 15) of two years.

In return, I shortly responded to his email by stating that the idea of finishing my Ph.D. just within two years is not a sound plan for me, because I later want to try to apply for some post-doc and finally tenure-track positions in North America. A two-year Ph.D. is way lower than their standards, and it shall seriously diminish my chances on that side. I also reminded them about the fact that they should have been honest and should have frankly told me that I am supposed to be dumped once the project in done regardless of how much time is passed from the start of my Ph.D. (I said all in a very professional tune without any aggression). I also noted that even if they don't like the extension problem statement, I am open to discuss about what they may alternatively prefer to be done. In the end, I reiterated again that finishing my Ph.D. in two years is not a thing I could imagine.
Now, I am thinking about the optimal way I should approach this issue. Finishing in just two years is literally like wasting two years of my life as I do know that almost every search committee would raise eyebrow when they see a two-year Ph.D. in my CV. I fill this whole story is totally unfair and hideously disappointing. I am heading toward a very important meeting with them that I have no idea how I should react if they just throw a THAT'S IT to me and simply make me end my Ph.D. How should I manage such a potential worst-case scenario?
PS. 1 I am in an STEM field, if does matter.
PS. 2 My university assigns each Ph.D. candidate to a mentor to whom she can bring any issue which could not be resolved in the circle of herself and her supervisors. Because of the pandemic, I can't meet mine, and he has not answered my email regarding my consultation request.

It's unclear to me why the rule "thesis to be completed within a four-year period from the candidate's official enrolment date (October 31st, 2018 in your case)" would "support the validity of their standpoint". That rule seems to say you should finish by October 31st, 2022, not "by the end of this year". Two years is stated as the minimum, not the maximum. Am I missing something?

The OP's supervisor is justifying 2 years, trying to establish that its not something unfair, I guess

Your advisors telling you that you've done enough to finish your PhD in two years is a good thing.  The fact that you have extensions to do on it in future work is also a good thing.
I've also never heard of a department that would think finishing a PhD in two years is a problem.  I suspect it's most likely a neutral thing, but if not it's almost certainly a positive, since it shows you can get things done and perform research in a timely fashion.
The optimal approach I would suggest is to graduate and go on the job market, then continue working on your research.  Congratulations on your impending graduation!

They haven't cared about my Ph.D. nor its quality. They have never passed me any comment on my papers or any particular hint during my Ph.D. up to know. They literally only care about their pocket to get rid of me once their project is done regardless of its impacts on me. Regarding your assertion about the sole positivity of the finishing after just two years, I have personally talked to some senior North-American faculty members who had noted that a less-than-three-year Ph.D. (as the worst case in UK) is fairly suspicious. Unless by the "job market", you mean the industry (...)

(...) which is obviously not my option because I would not leave Canada to come here if I wanted to finally end up with an industrial job.

I'm sorry to hear about the lack of input from your advisors, but with that being the case I think it's even more important to get out of there with your degree quickly.  Two more years with unhelpful advisors will not help you, and graduating with a PhD in two years will not hurt you.  Obviously do the best you can with the quality of your own work right now, then focus on the important extensions from your next position.  I don't know about the North American faculty you spoke with, but I maintain that finishing quickly is not at all something you will be judged on.

This answer captures how I would respond to this. I don't see how staying longer would provide much benefit.

Thanks for the hints. +1

I would agree with this, provided the supervisor reviews were glowing and they also did personal outreach to help you secure a post-doc.

When I was doing my PhD, one of the faculty had a very short PhD period (he finished in 3 years at Harvard, including 2 years of full time class work because they don’t do a Master’s first) and it was always considered to be a mark of his brilliance.

I think a 2 year PhD in the life sciences (biology, biochemistry etc.) that involves wet lab work might seem sketchy. My MSc was 2 years of work And PhD programs are expected to take longer.

@Cell Remember this is Europe, so no classes and most everyone comes in with a MsC

@Dawn In Canada most get a MSc before PhD or transfer to PhD after a year of MSc so its not very different. Also classes in life sciences are usually 2 days a week presenting a paper or evaluating another presenter so coursework is negligible. I will acknowledge that PhD expectations are different in Europe, but my point is that you can't assume all PhDs take approximately the same time especially when comparing say computer science with biology.

I agree with the other answer that from a reputation/career angle, there seems nothing wrong with doing a Ph.D. in 2 years, especially if your recommendations and publication record is strong. I don't see why your degree should be perceived negatively as a result. (Perhaps there is something specific to your field - I am also in STEM and would definitely not be the case in areas I know something about, but perhaps there is something special in some other (sub)fields?)
However, it does sound like it might be logistically challenging for your to finish in an accelerated timeframe AND also expend the necessary efforts for a good job-hunt elsewhere, especially with COVID-related restrictions on travel and perhaps hiring. And one does need to consider the hypothesis that pushing you through quickly might be influenced by your institution's/adviser's budget...
However, your tone (perhaps with cause, I can't tell) sounds quite confrontational to me. At least pro tempore, I would hold the firepower and use the upcoming meeting to understand what's in their mind, and what's the range of support they are prepared to offer to you. Accordingly, I'd try something like this:

You appreciate their vote of confidence in your research progress
That you are a bit concerned about the volume of work which needs to be done prior to formal completion. You think that what you still need to do is ..., ..., ... and ... Do they feel comfortable that can be done by date X, and how can they help you do that?
You are also concerned about the job hunt environment at this time, esp given ... and ... What kind of extension/other support could they offer you as a bridge, especially if you now would need to dedicate all possible effort to Ph.D. completion?

Then you can amp up the firepower, insist on talking with your mentor, etc etc if the answers you're getting are not satisfactory. But give this a chance to develop well, with an early Ph.D., stop-gap extension job, and great references (rather than an adverserial ending).


text:
Are Graduate Schools Less Likely to Fund and/or Accept Nontraditional Students?
I once heard that nontraditional students are less likely to be funded for graduate school. Supposedly (according to this person), this is because 40+ year old students rarely get tenure track positions. Thus, I guess they aren't profitable for the school/program (perhaps unless they're self-funded). I wanted to ask if there was any truth to this.
I'm in my late 30's and am deciding if/where to apply for a master's degree (in a humanities field), but my long term goal is a PhD. Even at the master's level, however, would I have difficulty getting funding at my age?
Also, are nontraditional students more likely to be rejected? I know we present more of a risk for the program, as we're statistically more likely to develop health issues, have fewer productive years in the field, etc. Do admissions committees take this into consideration when evaluating nontraditional applicants?
*Edit- I understand that discrimination is illegal, but this can be difficult to prove since all they have to find is one flaw in your application or decide that you're not a good "fit" for the program. (And my questions is not about winning a discrimination case but about initial acceptance vs. rejection.)

Arte you using "nontraditional" to mean "OLD"?

How would admission committees know your age?

They ask for transcripts from all institutions of higher education, and I have some credits from a community college around 20 years ago.

this is because 40+ year old students rarely get tenure track positions.

False.  PhD students of any age rarely get tenure track positions.

Even at the master's level, however, would I have difficulty getting funding at my age?

Not because of your age; however, PhD funding is more common than master's funding.

Also, are nontraditional students more likely to be rejected?

In most cases, no.  You may experience confusion if the program has never had a nontraditional applicant.

I think your answer to the first question is taking it overly literal :-) I'm pretty sure it meant to say "This is because 40+ year old students get TT positions even more rarely than those under 40."

Also, do departments even use TT positions of graduated students as a metric of success? Overall job placement, no matter gov't, academia, industry, etc. is the more common metric in my experience.

Not any sane departments.

While I don’t think outright discrimination is the norm, I have heard admissions committees say that a long break between degrees shows you are not as committed or dedicated to an academic path as someone who went straight through. This does amount to preference for younger applicants.
You can counteract this in two ways: first, by explaining your career rationale and goals post-degree clearly in your Statement of Interest; and, second, by going directly from your Master’s to PhD as a full-time student for both.
In addition, as Paul notes, you should ask your letter writers to speak to your commitment to grad school in their letters.

Agreed... but it can go the opposite way, too: instead of the without-thinking go-straight-through of very young people, sometimes I have the impression (on grad admissions ctes) that older people who've tried some other things have a much clearer commitment to grad school, and can be more mature and stable...

@paulgarrett Yes, as long as they and their letter writers give testimony and evidence to that effect!


text:
Would this kind of paraphrasing be called "plagiarism"?
Original Text:

The questionnaire was designed by the researcher to gather data on the
perceptions of students based on their experiences in the blended
environment. It consisted of Likert-type items and open-ended
questions. The content of the questionnaire was derived from a
literature review on blended learning and authenticity of learning,
from conversations with teaching staff, and from the researcher‟s
previous experiences in the use of blended format in teaching and
learning. Experts from Doctoral Committee were asked their opinions in
order to ensure content validity.

My Text
This part will be readded after finalizing my thesis.

Give some context. Who's is the original text?

I edited the text. The original text is from the thesis that I use questionnaire from.

@Cruwiel The question makes no sense with your edit...

I know, I will finalize and my submit my thesis soon. Now I'm worried that turnitin would be like "you stole this part from this question". That's why I'll readd it after submitting my thesis

Assuming that (Gedik, 2010) is the source of the original, I don't think you have a problem since, (a) you give the citation and (b) the ways to express the needed ideas here are very limited.
You are clearly making reference to the original work. And it is clear you are describing the work of another.
The essential elements describing the questionnaire must all be present and you have minimally done that.

Thank you so much for your answer! This is my first time writing a thesis and I'm concerned about the turnitin thing. I know that every institute has it's own rules for turnitin like what percentage is acceptable etc. When I use websites for comparing these two texts, I get something like "40% similarity" because it compares every single word... Is it how turnitin works? I hope that, for example this specific example would give result like "3-4% similarity"

Hopefully there is a human advisor who can discount any anomalies. And also able to give you advice. But just fighting the wording to overcome a robot is counterproductive for the expression of ideas.

As plagiarism can be defined as taking another’s language, thoughts, ideas or expressions then yes  I suggest that is plagiarism. So you should reference the source.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
This answer was written before the OP edited the question showing that it would be referenced.

No no, I will definitely add references. I edited the text. I'm planing to use this in my thesis. The original text is from the thesis that I use questionnaire from. Can I add this to my thesis with referencing the source?

No. That is what the answer says you can't.