text:
Differences in the culture of writing and publishing papers in various fields
I have not published any papers yet, and I was wondering on the process of writing and publishing an academic papers on different fields, and their differences. I have seen some related posts here, but none that fully summarizes the steps one typically takes to write/publish a paper. I'd like to see how this process may differ in various fields.

Your list looks good, but it's worth specifying what field you have in mind, since practices can vary quite a bit between fields.  For example, my impression is that in economics, it's common for a draft to spend quite a while as a "working paper" getting feedback before being submitted for publication, while in medicine most papers aren't circulated at all before peer review.

It really depends a lot on the field: I certainly don't do steps 4 and 5, and I've never heard anyone in my field doing it. And I also really don't do 1: ideas come up more from discussions with colleagues. Moreover, point 2 looks a lot like: let's try and see what happens. Given the cost of certain experiments, I usually start experimenting when I have a certain confidence that the idea will work.

A lot of times the idea from #1 comes from your advisor's grant that he/she is paying you with.

I would mainly just point out that while it seems like there should be some order, most of the process can actually happen in almost any order (at least, before the publication part). Also note that your listed method flow is actually an experimental method flow; many types of research do not use hypotheses in this way, especially qualitative research methods, as well as archival research, some meta-analyses, exploratory analysis, some varieties of ethnographic work, etc.

Nice outline.  Why don't you transfer it to an answer? // Suggest adding: keep track of the specific sources you use as you go along, so making the bibliography isn't so painful. // Sometimes the whole process starts with making corrections (for oneself) to a paper one is reading. // In some fields, you can write a paper about the methodology or instrumentation you developed while working on something specific. // Sometimes the germ comes from attending a seminar, considering a specific case, generalizing some other work of your own or someone else, someone asking for your help with something.

This is so very broad it might get closed.  If so, it might help to narrow it down to your field.

@aparente001 I was thinking of this question as more like a canonical question that summarizes research and publishing process for various field. Would this be considered too broad? I thought it might help people like me, who may not have had first-hand experience writing/publishing a paper.

I've edited the question, hopefully to make my intent clearer. If this is still too broad, I don't mind this question to be closed. I just thought it would be interesting to see how research processes in various fields differs from one another, and hopefully help people that may have questions on the overall process of writing and publishing papers.

You might be able to salvage the question by removing the last paragraph. You can also ask for help on Meta.

I would say all good research follows the general scientific method, or a tailored version thereof. In some fields the type of experiment and types of analysis are different but I wouldn't say this changes anything major. Research is research after all. The science buddies website is a good starting point to read up on the scientific method.
The answer by @Hosea is a mini version of the scientific method. I'm in the field of engineering and the same process pretty much applies (though in industry you typically do work and then see if you can also publish a paper on it).
In short the scientific method is as follows (from the science buddies website):

If you are aiming for a certain field or journal, read some of the most cited papers over the last year or two in that field or journal, and extract the style, outline, argument and logic flow from there. Your supervisor should also be able to advise you there.
Where you would see a big difference to the scientific method are in the "soft sciences" like humanities and languages.

In the field of Economics:

Read a lot about a field you are interested in, and come up with an idea/hypothesis for a paper. Perhaps talk to your colleagues to generate an idea.
Start experimenting and modelling to see if your hypothesis is true. Countless trial and error here, until you obtain satisfactory results.
Write about the results you've obtained.
Once you have a draft of working paper, try talking to other professionals in the field to see if they have any insights. Attend some workshops/conferences to present your draft and get feedback.
Edit the paper according to the feedback you've received until you feel that it's of sufficient quality to be published.
Choose a publisher/editors to review your paper. If they accept your paper, then revise your paper according to their suggestions and congratulation! You have published a paper.
If they reject your paper, revise your paper and submit it elsewhere.


text:
I was pushed to submit a mediocre paper to a conference. To my surprise it was accepted. How to save face?
I wrote a paper under pressure from my supervisor who gives high importance for publishing. I feel that both the conference and my paper are mediocre. What is done is done. How to distance myself from this evil mistake hanging in IEEE Xplore with my name on it forever? Is there any way? I really hate my predicament.
There is no incorrect information in my paper. The finding is nothing startling. The experiments lack rigor. Any serious researcher reading it will definitely point it out. Being associated with a work of mediocre quality pains me. I feel embarrassed.
The conference has a 65% acceptance rate.  My supervisor says it is a good conference. It is not small. Neither is it specialized. It has multiple tracks. And it's definitely accepting mediocre papers.
As for the choice of supervisor. It's life. Mistakes happen. I want to make sure it does not become a blunder. No point in wasting time whining about it. When the time is ripe I will disengage from mediocrity.
Edit: Today while the publications were being discussed with another professor my paper was discussed. The professor whose ideology differs from my supervisor's clearly found the paper lacking in substance. And then my supervisor disowned me saying he had a different opinion about my results and this discussion brought new knowledge to him. This makes my wound deeper. First I hate publishing my work and then I am to be blamed when it is criticized? This is the price of working with the wrong mind. Note that the paper was read by my supervisor before sending it.

You're upset about having a publication with IEEE?

@Saturnus Not all IEEE venues are highly reputable.

If your advisor is on quantity (publish anything anywhere) and not quality, you might need to rethink your choice.

Can you find any formal ranking of this conference and share with us?

There's nothing inherently bad about occasionally publishing mediocre papers, and mediocre conferences seem like the ideal place to publish them.  You did some work, you found some results.  Isn't it better that your work be available to the community, rather than dumped in a file somewhere?  It could still be of use to somebody someday.

This seems to be more a problem internal to your own sense of self and not an actual problem.  You produced a paper that lacked rigor.  It was adequate and had unsurprising findings. So what?  One of Einstein's most important papers was wrong everywhere.  Now that the field has advanced, he would get a failing grade as a grad student.  You are assuming that people are judging you, or even remembering your name.  You are also assuming hiring committees are even going to look at your papers.  I have read submitted papers for hiring, but I have never dug into the literature to check other work.

You produced something for conference.  Five people will look at it at the conference.  They will be in your room.  No one else will ever look at it.  The people in the room will comment on it and tell you what you already know.  Lots of papers at conferences are works in progress, if not most.  I would guess that 80%+ are not yet publication ready.  That is why you go to a conference, to be criticized.  That is their purpose.

I think you may be overestimating just how groundbreaking a paper has to be to be considered worthwhile. "I published a paper that was correct but not enormously significant" isn't a black mark on an academic record. Also: someone suggesting you rerun the experiment with more rigor is a sign of interest, not a criticism.

@DaveHarris This is not universal. In my field (TCS) conferences are for full papers and their status is equal, if not stronger to journal publications.

When you have a “quality paper” to present, you may be glad that you have already had the experience of presenting a paper.   Also think about all the people you will meet at the conference and the benefit that has to you.

Can you pose your question to the professor with the different ideology?  (Trying to keep your tone as neutral and non-bitter as possible?)

You have to start separating your internal standards of quality from the standards of good enough. Not only in academia but any job will be necessary sooner or later to accept that "good enough is what I will be getting paid for and nothing more".

You can simply say it is a work-in-progress, and list the lessons learned and items to revisit in your presentation, and thank commenters for their feedback. Sounds perfectly respectable to me. As everyone else commented, in a few months noone else will care. And I wouldn't say "my supervisor disowned me", maybe that was just a tactful "Thanks for your suggestions" standard response to other professor. (Did he since privately criticize you? Even so I wouldn't stress about it all.)

@NateEldredge your comment really helped me decide b/w whether to publish my (MS) thesis findings in paper or not. I think I should go for it, maybe someone can build on my mediocre research and do some substantial work

Walter Plinge is the pseudonym used by actors when the role they are about to play is not good enough for their name...

A lesson for future... Don't do anything against your better judgement, regardless of pressure or perceived repercussions.

If you want people to forget your bad papers, there is a simple solution: write much betters ones, too  and publish them.

So your supervisor pushed you to publish the paper, then criticized the paper after that? Sounds like a loser to me. I wouldn't feel bad about publicizing his incompetence as a supervisor.

If you're not happy with it, withdraw it. It's your decision, noone else's.

@EJP I do not wield that power. Unfortunately an action like that will have adverse effects on my other pursuits. I wish I had that power though.

How to save face?  Have more high quality papers than poor ones.  People understand that a student's first paper is not necessarily outstanding, especially if his/her supervisor is more about quantity than quality. So it reflects more badly on your supervisor than you as long as you have the 'student' badge on.  However, you can only wear the 'student' badge for so long.  So, aim to get better papers published.
Personally, when I glance at a person's CV, I only look for the best publications.  That's what I judge him/her on.
In summary, people remember successes or high quality papers or those with impact.
Aside: in my area, there is a paper in a poor venue with 10K+ cites.  In contrast, lots of high quality papers have zero citation. Don't despair, there is hope!

This is a good answer but with a supervisor that consistently is about quantity, it might be hard to produce stellar results as a student (I've seen a great paper being split into meaningless chunks to secure > 3 independent publications instead of a top 1)

@PsySp unfortunately, there is nothing you can do as a student.  In some fields, a standard PhD thesis contains at least 15 journal papers.  What you are alluding to is another question: how to publish little and not perish?

I agree with this. Focus on the next paper. My supervisor was of the other opinion (only submit top papers to top journals) and that hurts you on the job market, too. Students get a pass for mediocre early publications because it is considered to be building experience with the publishing process.

@Prof.SantaClaus: I would be very interested to know of an academic field in which a standard PhD thesis contains at least 15 journal papers.

@Prof.SantaClaus unfortunately, there is nothing you can do as a student — This is simply not true.  The student can say no; publication requires the affirmative consent of all authors.  If necessary, the student can find another advisor.

I like your answer but don't feel that your comment strengthens it.  Could you either explain it or delete it?

@PeteL.Clark Materials engineering/science.

@JeffE In practice, students feel they are powerless, especially international students; not many are willing to challenge the wisdom of their supervisor.  Also, in my school, the unofficial policy is not to accept a student that wants to transfer from another colleague; i.e., we don't want to be accused of stealing students.

I am an international student. Changing supervisors leads to politics among lecturers. Not interested in the game. It's difficult.

@Prof.SantaClaus The natural defense against any accusation of stealing students is that students are not property and therefore cannot be "stolen". It's tragic that so many students and faculty feel otherwise.

@JeffE On the contrary that's not our stance.  We don't see students as 'property'. We don't want to sour our working relationship, especially when we can be colleagues for 20-30 years.  Having said that, if a student informs his/her supervisor properly that things are not working out, then another colleague may be willing to accept the student, assuming the student meets the new colleague's requirements.  Often, it is poor performing students that want to transfer.

@Prof.SantaClaus obviously this will vary with which subfield but the best students in the bit I know of (semiconductors) got a handful of first author papers before submitting, with a similar number of co-authorships (many of which don't add anything to the thesis except a mention on the publications page) and a conference presentation or two.  I can see 15 being a goal to be achieved by some students, but I can't see it being the norm in very many areas at all.

@ChrisH I agree. I was surprised when I learned that such a number was a norm.  Also, note that in some fields, a journal paper is 2 pages in length.

@PsySp OPs problem was about bad experimental design and such, and not cutting papers into smaller ones. No one stops him to do better. Also, I saw many students who had very strong opinions they don't want to publish- only they failed to write and publish the magnum opus they intended to fiddle around for log with.

I feel the first step is to calm down and to stop exaggerating. Seeing this as an "evil mistake" and a "predicament" that's "embarrassing" is really, really over the top for just having published a paper that's correct but uninteresting at a low-competition conference from a reputable publisher. As you say yourself - "when the time is ripe" you will start publishing better papers, and then nobody (including you) will care anymore about this weak one. And before that time you have at least gotten some experience in writing papers.
Now to answer your actual question:

How to distance me from this evil mistake hanging in IEEE Xplore with my name on it forever.

The only way to "distance yourself" from a paper is to retract it, and that's not really an option given that the results are not wrong. That is, you or one of your co-authors have submitted this paper under your name, and now you need to live with it. However, note that it "hanging in IEEE Xplore with your name" is much less of a big deal than you may think it is. The internet is a big place, and a paper in a small, non-competitive conference is virtually invisible as long as it does not get cited frequently or otherwise gets viral (which, if it is boring as you say, is very unlikely to happen).

The internet is a big place, and a paper in a small, non-competitive conference is virtually invisible as long as it does not get cited frequently or otherwise gets viral (which, if it is boring as you say, is very unlikely to happen). +1 - can't be said better than that!

Your supervisor, who has more experience than you, thought that the paper was worth publishing. The conference programme committee, who are all more experienced than you, thought that the paper was worth publishing.
You should give serious consideration to the possibility that they actually have a better idea of your paper's worth than you do. It is very common for research students to feel that their papers are of little value.
And even if you're right about the quality of the paper, one mediocre paper really isn't a big deal. A pattern of mediocre papers is... well, mediocre. But you surely get more credit for a single mediocre paper than you would for no paper at all. Make sure you feel the next one is better.

As a graduate student, I had this feeling that my papers were nothing special for quite a while. Then I started to present them in conferences, and to my surprise, people were actually interested. Now, when I look back at those papers, I see some pretty decent research. It was just me, selling myself short.

Save face by owning it and not making it worse. Go to the conference and cheerfully present the paper. Do not over or under sell its merits. Let the audience be the judge.
Avoid a meta-discussion about how and why you ended up publishing it. This could be insulting to the others at the conference.
Maybe there is something in your paper that will enable someone else to do great things.
Likewise, get as much out of the conference as you can. Learn from each speaker. If the content of the conference is not interesting to you, you can always analyze each speaker's approach to find what works and what doesn't work.
I'm guessing that your supervisor pushed you to submit the paper due to pressure from above. Perhaps someone higher up is making funding decisions based on the number of papers that are published.
If so, publishing your paper will provide future funding for you and others to write more important papers. Plus, others realize this and will give you the benefit of the doubt. Next time, just make it one you're proud of.

I am not really attending the conference. My supervisor is.

I think the second paragraph is important, even if OP is not attending the conference. One of my friends, who had a low opinion of the methodology he used in research made a few disparaging comments about it in his pre-defense talk. We convinced him to skip the comments in his actual defense, because that always looks bad to an audience from outside the field.

What I've often done at conferences is to give a talk that significantly deviates from the accepted paper. So, if you have some new results in the pipeline that would be more interesting for the audience than what's in the paper, you are free to base your talk on that. No one actually reads the conference proceedings, people visit conferences to have a chat with their colleagues, to listen what they've been up to recently, to show off their work to their peers, to introduce their Ph.D. students to possible new employers etc. etc.

that's a great idea, Count!  hopefully the OP is doing some work that is exciting and he/she might try to leverage the mediocre paper into a better-than-mediocre presentation with some of the "good stuff" in the presentation.  (hey, i'm still alive and i still edit WP anonymously.  thanks for sticking up for me about a decade ago.)

@robertbristow-johnson Yes, I remember you! Jimbo should unblock all the blocked old accounts, there is no point in having blocked accounts from decades ago except for certain exceptional cases.

there's no good reason for them to have perma-blocked me in the first place.  the Intelligent Design article displays ostensible bias.  and it's fatally flawed for insisting that ID=DI and the term has existed centuries before there ever was an organization called the Discovery Institute.

It's always a good idea with conference papers to remember that the criteria used for deciding what papers to accept are quite different from the criteria of the audience listening to your talk. Make your talk interesting and entertaining, and no-one will really care whether it has much relationship to your paper.

You appear to be a student working under the direction of a supervisor.  Try to actually PRESENT the paper yourself - not your supervisor.  You need the practice of standing up in front of an audience and sounding interesting - and answering questions from the audience.  The fact that it's not stellar will not damage your reputation at this stage of your career.  You can say, if you feel you must, that it's a first draft or a first step in a larger project - but if you say this, be prepared to outline the larger project.
Really, just try to give the paper yourself and relax, if at all possible.

I have a better paper in a much better conference accepted and I opted to present that.

Your paper getting accepted means that reviewers have agreed on the significance of you paper's results.
Therefore, I personally would not see a need to save face. Your paper, with these results, got accepted. If it is mediocre, as you say, it should be the ones who accepted the paper who need to save face.
And also, slightly related.

The name of reviewers is not mentioned anywhere. Mine is as the first author. That is the problem.

I don't think it would have such a big influence on your career. You just submitted a paper and it got accepted. It is the conference's reputation to be lowered

I believe that it is the author who is ethically responsible for publishing innovative and sound papers and avoiding mediocre ones. Journals and conferences are often money-driven, and being accepted today does not imply one's work is worth the effort, public money and community's attention.

Unfortunately, I've had the experience of getting preposterous and baseless reviews even from very well-rated conferences - both when being accepted and when being rejected. So, disagree. -1.

@einpoklum I don't think this experience has anything to do nor with the question neither the answer. Reviews being quality or not is not the debate.

Your answer suggests that the acceptance by the reviewers indicates there's no need to save face; unfortunately, that's not the case. There are definitely papers which are embarrassing and get past reviewers.

A question of mine, when I was a student (and administrating the unix systems at school) made it up to alt.humor.best-of-usenet. You hardly can go below this when working in IT.
My friends and not friends were rolling with laughter to the abysmal (but funny) stupidity of the question. I was ashamed like hell.
25 years later

I smile when recalling this
I think that the documentation which led me to that question was written by a lunatic and that guy should be tortured by making him use a Mac, for writing such piles of [censored], leading young and trustful people into asking such questions. So it was not my fault, but I digress.

No worries, you will publish more and nobody will look at how you did early in your life.

Wow. Did you ask how to shot web? How to patch KDE2 under FreeBSD?

You need to start somewhere.
Your supervisor probably asked you to submit the paper, knowing that it had a few shortcomings (at least that's what he implied to the professor).
But he probably thought that a mediocre publication was better for you than nothing. As your supervisor, he's being paid to make these judgments.
A mediocre first (or early) paper is nothing to worry about. Just make sure that your next one is better, now that you have a "baseline." And given your conscientiousness and new-found experience, that will certainly be the case.

Most academics have experienced some sort of knock back, and there always will be different views to whatever you submit, don't expect everyone to worship you!, most especial on one of your first!. Everyone has to start somewhere, and you have, so use the feedback to make the next better!.
As said above, distancing yourself from you paper only makes you look badder!, better to proudly say, as you do that you submitted some truths, but it is a "work in progress".
In saying all that, I, and the academia world are not surprised in the least that a young up-start thinks papers and/or conferences are some what of a joke!, and are lazy and mediocre and submit average-to-trivial material!. Congratulations, your one of the modern lazy ignorant arrogant students so don't go around thinking your a dismal failure and there are none others like you!, unfortunately your part of a large minority!.
Some advice, TAKE ALL PAPERS AND CONFERENCES SERIOUSLY, as, you can bet your last dollar that your co-students will never let you forget your "mediocre" attempt!.

There is an old saying in marquetry work:

if there is some defect in a piece of wood, do not try to hide it, at the
  risk of cheap dissimulation. Put it in evidence.

Sometimes, an apparently shallow work grows many sides. After years, seemingly mediocre PhD insights (mine) revealed deeper after more experience. This is the personal side. For the outer readers, you never know who you reach, and at which level. One man floor is another's ceiling.
A suggestion for your future researcher's life: strive to find deep roots in this work. Flowers grow from manure. Future will tell. Good or bad, all of mine PhD works revealed structurant.

In my work, I have not found any defect in results. It is just that it is kind of "obvious" and not deep rooted as should be in a good publication. The experimentation is not to my satisfaction - but I was kind of forced to go with it because a publication is more desirable in my place of work than its quality.

I did not wrote there were defects. I made an analogy of this one, as a potential defect, in the marquetry of your future research pattern

It is important for a PhD student to write papers and participate in conferences. By 'forcing' you into this, your supervisor is developing your career. Also, going to a conference can be a good change of scene; when you go, you'll feel much better.

I strongly disagree with this answer. What is important is to do quality research. There are conferences of very low quality and acceptance standards. By submitting a paper there and presenting it, there is very little added value but a high risk (these conferences clearly serve the purpose of quantity)

@SpySp Level of a conference where you get accepted summarizes many factors, including how novel is you work, what amount of work you did and how big of a name you are. On a way to a large amount of novel work to publish in a big venue, a PhD student first has to do a small amount of incremental work and publish it in a small one.

@alexey I neither disagree or agree with your comment. When a paper is online for everyone to see it contributes to my reputation , positive or otherwise. If the work is not fit for someone to read and spend his or her time, I consider myself party to crime.

"On a way to a large amount of novel work to publish in a big venue, a PhD student first has to do a small amount of incremental work and publish it in a small one." While this is not necessarily bad career advice, saying "has to" is just not true.  A PhD student doesn't have to publish lots of papers good or bad; they should be learning and doing the best work they can.  Publishing something of little value can certainly be a waste of their precious time.

I don't completely disagree with the answer, but if you are insecure with your research, going to conferences too early will only make you more insecure. When you go, you should have some decent research results ready and you have to be able to discuss them with the audience. If that condition is met, the adviser could take upon themselves to "force" the student to write papers and go to conferences.

It is important for most positions to learn to be comfortable in social contexts of work life. +1

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How to explain an unofficial research sabbatical on my CV?
Last year, I took 3 months off my usual paid work (in an partly related field) and just focused on research.  Although, I remained as an Adjunct for a university, this 'research sabbatical' was an unofficial and a personal decision. During that time, I was able to publish and submit several papers.
However, this leaves a noticeable gap in my usual work history of 'some related job + Adjunct'.  At this stage, the sabbatical is only 'covered' on the CV by the Adjunct position and does not seem enough of an explanation, as it does not seem to emphasise the research output I was able to achieve.  (please note - my concern is not the paid vs unpaid aspect of my work history).
I would like to indicate that I went on an unofficial sabbatical on the CV with particular emphasis on the research output, but are not sure how.
How can I explain an unofficial 'research sabbatical' on a CV?

You could make a brief mention in the CV and then give a more complete explanation in a cover letter. Also note that a three-month gap is so short that you could also just not mention it -- unless you feel that mentioning it makes you more attractive.  You might want to let your publication list speak for itself.

Given that it sounds like the university was aware of your plans to come back and seems to have kept your original faculty position for you while you were on sabbatical, you don't have to list this as separate employment. Sabbaticals are well understood within the academic field; listing it separately is just confusing things.
You may want to put the sabbatical as a sub-bullet under your academic position on your resume just to emphasize that (1) you're a cool enough person that your university allowed you to take sabbatical (and held your position for you until you came back), and (2) you have experience doing research outside the university setting.

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


text:
Is it acceptable to post a brief and speculative paper on ArXiv?
I wrote a speculative paper, outlining an approach to make data analysis more efficient. I am a physicist and the idea is described in words and with a few schemes. I don't have the programming skills to show that the idea works.
In terms of etiquette, would it be OK to publish the paper on arXiv?

A paper on arXiv is a paper. It is linked with your name and reputation, forever. "I don't have the programming skills to show that the idea works." indicates that the idea is not mature enough yet to be a paper. Whether you want to have something like that linked to you, only you can know, but one principle which pops out invariably is: your readers are not your beta testers.

Have you tried contacting someone who does research in data analysis and programming to see if you can run your ideas by them?  They might be able to point out what's wrong (if anything), what about it already exists (could be a lot since you're not an expert), practical problems (there are a lot of obscure arcana to programming due to languages and hardware, such as cases where it's best to start counting at a very large number, instead of at 0 or 1), or suggest a joint work if it seems meritorious but in need of a specialist.

I don't have the programming skills to show that the idea works. — Then what makes you think it does?

Does it have any analytical approach?

Nope, it's more like a review/outlook paper, more proposal-like than analytical.

In general when is "I have a general interesting idea for solving problem X but don't have tools Y to determine if it really works" worth publishing? It depends on how important the advance would be, how big a step your paper takes relative to the part remaining, and how easy it would be for the remaining work to be done. I agree with Captain Emacs that you should not be using readers as your beta testers. Let me propose three categories:
A) Not worth publishing: Is (a+b)^2 = a^2+b^2? Simple question, which could be resolved by actually doing the algebra.
B) Probably not worth publishing without extra work/collaboration: Our mathematical model predicts cancer correlates with gene X. Potentially important result, but this is something a bioinformatics person would know or be able to find out easily - so why are you spending so much time writing this up without asking someone to check first?
C) Worth publishing: "The Taniyama-Shimura conjecture, if true, implies Fermat's Last Theorem" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribet%27s_theorem). Linking two unsolved problems, or providing a potentially new attack on an old problem, can be a useful contribution even if it doesn't solve everything.
I think you are probably in case B, because if the issue is just that you don't have many programming skills, you can either learn enough to implement your ideas or find someone to collaborate with. If you can't, this means your question is probably not well-posed enough to interest the broader audience of arXiv. I suspect this is the case, because your question is not too detailed "Data analysis" is a huge field -- you could be trying to speed up an algorithm for a known process (something where you could have a theoretical result -- but it shouldn't be too hard to implement to show you are right), or find a better way of extracting some detail from data (need to test on real-world data to make sure you are not fooling yourself), etc. Your question doesn't sound like you need super-specialized skills, or a giant investment of time to fill in the later details -- so you should try to do this before publishing. Otherwise, you run the risk of spending weeks writing up a draft to wait a month for someone to test your idea to find out that, if you asked the right person, they could have found out in ten minutes that it didn't work.

I encountered a similar issue with my dissertation, where I had to develop and prove an algorithm.
My advisor and department chair instructed me to not post the MATLAB demo code I had written and originally included as an appendix, out of fear that (a) it could be stolen (we're on the ProQuest online posting bandwagon for dissertations), or (b) that someone could implement it incorrectly, assume it doesn't work, and tag both me and my new alma mater for low-quality work.
Instead, my graduate committee wanted me to shift focus on providing demonstrative proof that the program both halts (meaning, of course, that it takes a finite number of steps to respond after input) and properly completes its assigned task - in my case, through proof by induction on key loops.
Though I know publishing is different than dissertation writing, I would assume the same standard may be in play here, unless the context of your problem itself takes focus off need for formal proof.

out of fear that (a) it could be stolen — This is an argument in favor of posting to arXiv (or better yet, github), since that provides clear evidence of priority.

JeffE, point well taken.


text:
Reference to the unpublished lecture notes
I doubt about the following situation.
There is a kind of lecture notes, which contains really valuable examples on which I want make a reference from my paper (I cite some of them and reuse some of them).
But this work wasn't officially published, and it is not listed in the list of the works in the CV of the author. The only one place where this document appears is this link:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95a3/cb63b80c3416879d534f41eedcd174b40159.pdf
So what the proper way to deal with this situation? Give a link like on web-resource as MISC or UNPUBLISHED or do not make reference at all?
At the moment citation of this work looks like:
M. Kanazawa, Context-free tree grammars, SemanticScholar, URL https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95a3/cb63b80c3416879d534f41eedcd174b40159.pdf, 2012.
which doesn't look very nice.
HINT: I'm not asking for a specific TeX or BibTex advice!
Below just a convenient formal view of the reference which I'm going to put.
@MISC {kanazawamakoto2012,
    author   = "Kanazawa, Makoto",
    title    = "Context-free tree grammars",
    HOWPUBLISHED= {SemanticScholar},
    month    = "feb",
    year     = "2012",
    URL = "https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95a3/cb63b80c3416879d534f41eedcd174b40159.pdf"
}

Might be worth double-checking with the author, to see if they have been published elsewhere under a different name, or if he could upload them to arxiv, so that there is a more clearly established record.

@AJK this is a good point, I thought about it

In APA (6th) citation style, it would look like this:
Kanazawa, M. (2012). Context-free tree grammars. Lecture, Place/University. Retrieved 4 May 2017, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/95a3/cb63b80c3416879d534f41eedcd174b40159.pdf
The Place/University should be corrected. Could be SemanticScholar.
Nevertheless, I'd check (before citing this lecture note) whether the information you want to cite is included in one of the given references.
Note: Since the desired citation style is not clear, I used APA as default. I can change the citation style, if the desired one is added to the question.

Okay, thank you for your answer. That's fine to  use APA

One comment besides the formal issues:
While formally ok, citing documents using non-persistent links is in my opinion sort of "last resort". First one should check all other possibilities. The reason is quite simple: references should not only document what you have used, but the reader should also be able access them. This is not guaranteed with non-persistent links.
Especially in case of lectures all material is typically published by the lecturer in various other papers or the lecturer has taken the material from other publications. In these cases one should better cite the primary sources. That might be a lot of work, but it's the way to go. At the end, in the text you want to cite the references fill 1 out of 7 pages total!
In any case, if you are going to cite officially unpublished documents it is always a good idea to contact the author asking how he/she would prefer to be cited.

Lecture notes are, on the whole, not an academically sound source of information (unless you are talking about opinions). By all means use lecture notes to understand an area, but if you wish to cite find the references where the lectuerer got their information from.


text:
Effects of changing majors in undergrad on graduate admission
I'm posting this on behalf of my friend. I'll address my friend as 'I' in this question to make it more readable.
I'm currently an undergraduate studying podiatry outside US. Over the course of 3 years, I've moved around to 5 different universities, studying 5 different majors, in 3 different countries, for personal reasons. I've finally settled down in one country, but I've quickly realized that I'm not interested in podiatry. I'm thinking of applying to US universities for masters program in speech pathology, which is vastly different from podiatry. Since I know that I won't be pursuing further degree in podiatry, I'm thinking of changing to another school (my school does not offer anything related to speech pathology), but I'm afraid that with so many transfers in my record, another transfer may not look favorable in grad school admission.
My question is:  Is it better, in terms of admission to master's program, to change school to study something more relevant to grad school major, or stick with the current school and get over with undergraduate?

Finish a degree.  Any degree.  Then supplement the completed coursework with things that will enhance your grad school applications.

Graduate school admission committees are going to question your ability to finish anything, without changing your mind about what you want to study. What are you going to say in your application to convinced them you will stick with speech pathology long enough to finish their program? Which course of action will better support your claims?

@aparente001 it seems that people like your comment. Would you like to make your comment an answer so that I can accept it?

Finish a degree. Any degree. Then supplement the completed coursework with things that will enhance your grad school applications.  You're almost there -- just get it over with, and then figure out what additional courses you'd like to take or audit.
Note also that many colleges and universities will limit late credit transfers.  I imagine they want a degree from their institution to reflect their institutional identity.


text:
Researcher anonymity in fieldwork
Numerous posts on this site address anonymous or pseudonymous publication, but not anonymous or pseudonymous fieldwork.
There plausibly exist situations in which a researcher undertaking fieldwork would have to conceal their own identity from non-researchers they encounter in the field, in order to protect themselves or the research project. Here are some possible scenarios:

Previous research has shown that the community under study deviates from its normal behaviour when it knows a researcher is present.
The researcher would be in danger if their profession or identity were known to people in the field.
The researcher plans to publish anonymously or pseudonymously, and would otherwise risk being "outed" by people encountered in the field.

What are some good sources on research ethics that discuss protocols for handling such cases?
Can you provide any published examples describing such fieldwork?

This problem appears to have been considered by the social science community, and at least some resources have been prepared.  In particular a little searching turned up a book, "Fieldwork, Participation and Practice: Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research" by Marlene de Laine, which appears to discuss these sorts of issues---the Google Books preview only showed me so much, but there was at least some discussion of covert fieldwork.

Thanks, this is a great find :) When I get time, I'll see if there is any more recent work that builds on de Laine's piece and factors in modern communication technologies and the steadily-increasing risk of de-anonymisation. If anyone beats me to it, do please post new or expanded answers accordingly :)


text:
Is it appropriate (as a PhD student) to email other researchers asking about some details in their papers?
It has happened on several occasion now, that I read a paper, understand 95% of it, but there are some niggling details which I simply don't get. I ask around, I ask my advisor, and nobody is able to help (either because they don't get it themselves or they are too busy, which is completely understandable).
I have often felt like simply writing to the author of the paper, asking clarifying questions. But these are all busy people, currently on the job market, interviewing everywhere. And another thing is they also know my (rather famous) advisor pretty well.
Would it be weird to write to them? If so, should I mention my advisor at all? I don't want to put my advisor in an awkward situation, at the same time I don't want to seem like I'm hiding some information.
I am just not comfortable asking such a stupid question to my advisor, hence asking here. Thanks so much!

During the course of my masters I wrote to a couple of authors asking for a little more guidance when my supervisor wasn't sure. No body reacted poorly. Despite my being so junior, they both seem happy to explain things.

It's perfectly appropriate and, if you were asking me about my paper I would actually be extremely happy to know people are reading my work, and they found it interesting enough to dig further into the details.

I would say that IS the whole point of papers. For others to read and understand them.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out the increasing use of stackexchange-style websites - e.g. I've frequently used mathoverflow or math.stackexchange to help me resolve a technical problem in a paper I"m reading or similar. One advantage of this approach is that you aren't even implicitly impinging on anyone's time, you're simply putting the question "out there" and hopefully someone answers it. This is not to say that you shouldn't email the author (although of course you should do so very politely, and only after putting forth a good-faith effort on your own), but it's worth knowing about.

I always thought this is what corresponding authors are ultimately for?

The fact that people are actually thinking about such stuff is telling. Doing research without asking the people who had ideas just because of some reputation garbage is the worst thing that can ever happen to a scientific community. If you really think you could upset your advisor by this, he's probably more interested in his reputation than your knowledge. Hence, you should probably look for a more stimulating position elsewhere.

I did this for both my BA and my MA theses. Nobody reacted poorly. Some were indeed quite slow to answer, but that’s to be expected, as you say.

I think most would be happy to help - if they find the time and you don't end up in a spam filter. They probably have their own papers to write, groups to lead, teaching to organize, administration, research, conferences to attend, students-to-supervise, grants to apply for, lectures to prepare, seminars to attend, official events to attend, papers to review et.c. It's not likely that they will prioritize questions of their papers very high on that list.

I think its perfectly fine. Once, somebody asked me about some details and I was happy about it. During my master thesis I asked a professor for an extended version of his paper I could not find online, and he was nice and sent it.

What doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is how valuable theses can be for this sort of thing. Theses will often include details that are cut from published manuscripts due to length restrictions or politics, and, in general, go into much more depth. It's always worth checking whether any of the authors of the paper have recently graduated. In any case, another +1 for emailing authors with any outstanding questions about their papers.

@JulianWolf I agree with your observation, but dissertations / theses don't seem to get a lot of love on this site, and, I suspect, that the prevailing opinion among quite a few academics is that "no one will ever read your dissertation."

@MadJack, thanks for the info. It's disappointing to learn that that's a prevailing opinion in other fields, but I guess not all that surprising.

Are you interested in that 5 percent of the paper? Do you think it has any innovative or seminal ideas? I wouldn't recommend annoying him just for the sake of career purposes.

As a professor, I've received many emails from graduate students at other institutions over the years asking me questions about my research. Not once has any of the following thoughts ever crossed my mind following such an email:

This student is doing something "inappropriate" by contacting me at my publicly listed email address.
This student is "stupid" or is asking a "stupid question".
Oh, this student mentioned their famous advisor. Their ignorance reflects poorly on their advisor. I will make sure to complain to the advisor the next time I see them.
Oh, this student didn't mention their advisor. Something's fishy here. I need to know who their advisor is, and preferably know it's someone famous who can help me in my career, before I dignify their email with a reply.
Etc etc, i.e. any other bad thought that suggests the student has crossed some invisible line separating lowlifes like them from (supposedly) important, powerful people like me.

Instead, here is a sampling of ways I actually react when I receive such an email:

Oh, how nice. Someone at [name of cool university] is thinking about [name of my paper]!
Oh, how nice. A student of [name of famous advisor I am friends with] is thinking about [name of my paper]!
Oh, how nice. This student pointed out a weak point in the presentation of one of my proofs. I hadn't thought of the question that way, it's quite interesting! Seems like a smart student, would be nice to meet them some day.
Hmm, I'm kind of busy with lots of other things so this email stresses me out a bit. Oh well, I'll find time to reply to it some time in the next few days. In the meantime, how nice that someone is taking an interest in my paper and has interesting things to ask/say about it.

As you can see from these two lists, basically the whole premise assumed in your question about the mindset of a professor receiving an email of the type you are thinking of sending is deeply misguided. Professors (the vast majority of them at least) are simply nothing like the scary, classist, pretentious, easily offended, thin-skinned people that a lot of students and other people seem to think they are. They are busy, yes, but the main thing that makes them so busy is that they are passionate about their work and usually cannot pass on an opportunity to discuss it with someone, regardless of their academic rank. So, good luck sending your emails! I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised by the replies you get. :-)

Yes.  So many of us walk around with an inferiority complex, afraid that if we ask a "dumb" question, we will suddenly be exposed as the "sham researchers" we feel we are.  This perception is false.  Asking for help is not a sign of weakness; it ought to be a normal part of research.

Just about every time I've contacted someone to ask about their research they've been delighted to learn of my interest in it. Not coincidentally, this is basically my reaction whenever someone contacts me about my work. :-)

Excellent answer, thank you. My wife, when preparing her MSc, contacted the authors of a paper and they were so glad that someone is actually reading that they not only responded, but pointed out interesting ramifications and provided a copy of their software so that she can test hers. They ended up, years later, to write a few papers together after her PhD. Ah, and the jury highlighted the fact that she went the extra mile to contact the authors (during her MSc defense)

I think it's perfectly fine. They publish their research because they want other researchers to know about it. Maybe they will ignore your question, or maybe they will answer - in any case, it's not weird.

I'd add: Just make it visible that you've already made an effort to understand the paper.

And, for bonus points, write the email in a way that offers them a guilt-free way out if they are too busy to respond in depth.

@E.P. Yes, for example suggesting one is open to being redirected to some other resource (e.g. paper, textbook) in the e-mail would make it more likely the author would give some response, if not able to answer fully.

If you are worried about making your advisor look like an idiot, I would ask him/her the question first. If they cannot answer it or they do not have the time, then, by all means, reach out to the corresponding author of the paper in question.
More importantly, you shouldn't let your advisor's popularity get in the way of you doing great research, so don't do that.

Just because the advisor cannot answer, he may still appear as an idiot to authors of paper

You don't need to mention upfront that your advisor can not answer. That would ease the "make him look like an idiot" part. However, if the question is answerable, I would be more worried about your advisor looking lazy - more willing to waste the author's time than his own.

You probably don't need to mention your advisor at all. But do ask your advisor's advice on phrasing: they might suggest you're obsessing about details, or be pleased they've got a particularly careful student, or suggest ‘don't admit you don't know X’, or... (as a PhD student you're an apprentice academic, and this is the sort of professional communication skill you can only learn this way).

@NormanGray - Could you post this as an answer?  Comments are ephemeral but answers stick around.

Oooh, OK. I don't think it adds a huge amount beyond the answers which have appeared in the interim, but no harm, I suppose!

@Pere Helping the PhD student is not a waste of time, regardless of who is doing it, so if the advisor is being lazy, it's not that he's "more willing to waste the author's time than his own" but rather simply shifting responsibility. The way you wrote it makes it seem like he is shifting a frivolous burden to someone else.

"Say, Professor X, I was wondering about point Y in your paper Z, and asked Professor X' my advisor. Would you believe he couldn't figure it out? Lame...." :-)

Is it appropriate

Yes it is. Science is about exchange of information. Unless the other researchers are on a rival group that hate you, I see no reason for you not to ask them. Put yourself in their shoes, and you will see it is actually in their own interest to help you. Two things that might go through their head:

Someone is asking me about my research! I will help them so they can cite me, my h-index will go up and I will be promoted sooner!
Someone is asking me about my research! I will help them so they will invite me to their next symposium/colloquium/workshop to speak
  about the subject!

By asking them a question, you are not making the impression that you do not know. Assuming they help you, you should know afterwards. You are learning, and people also learn by explaining themselves. Maybe your question will make them think of something they didn't before? This starts a discussion and opens up new opportunities. Who knows? You might even collaborate in the future.
This discussion is also beneficial if you meet them later on, let's say in a conference. Instead of saying "hi, I'm convexityftw" followed by an awkward silence, you can start with "hi, I'm convexityftw and we talked before on the subject of...I did this...got that...". You're getting your name known, and this is just one form of networking.

If so, should I mention my advisor at all?

No, in my opinion. Being a PhD student means you're being trained as an independent researcher. It's a matter between you, researcher A, and the author(s), researcher B. Your advisor should not babysit you or give you the answers. It's your job.

asking such a stupid question

There are no stupid questions.
I don't know in how many seminars and conferences you've been, but I've heard so many "stupid questions" from senior professors, so I don't worry about it anymore. I'm in good company and we're all asking stupid questions.

I will finish with some anecdotes from my own experience (a last-year PhD student in the earth sciences):
I send these kind of emails all the time. My advisor doesn't even know or care that I do. I never got a negative reply in the form of "I'm busy I don't want to answer you" or similar. I was ignored only three times. I don't even remember how many positive responses I got - several dozens? Some were more useful than others, but positive nonetheless. I met some of these "important" people at later conferences, and we had good and productive discussions. Now they know me as "the guy who knows X and is good with Y". Only good can come out of this.

+1, even though there are stupid questions (trust me on this).

@einpoklum I think its one of those statements that is true up until you start to take advantage of it (and that's The Ultimate Sin)

You probably don't need to mention your advisor at all.
That said, it would probably be worth asking your advisor's advice on phrasing: they might suggest you're obsessing about details, or be pleased they've got a particularly careful student, or suggest ‘don't admit you don't know X’, or...
As a PhD student you're an apprentice academic – by the end of your PhD you should expect to be working and talking with other scientists as a (junior) peer – and this is the sort of professional communication skill you can only learn this way.

(turning my comment into an answer after giving it a thought - it may help you to make up your mind)
My wife, when preparing her MSc, contacted the authors of a paper and they were so glad that someone actually read it that they not only responded, but pointed out interesting ramifications and provided a copy of their software so that she can test hers.
They ended up, years later, to write a few papers together after her PhD.
Ah, and the jury highlighted the fact that she went the extra mile to contact the authors (during her MSc defense)

Why should her jury know that she contacted that author? Did she cite it as "personal communication"?

Yes, she mentioned that she double-checked previous results to verify her software. She specifically wanted to highlight their help in her thesis.

At times, it might be appropriate to look up co-authors who are also graduate students. That way you can speak directly with a peer in your own field, and have a good networking opportunity as well.

First of all, I believe that you could try to "acquire" the technique by yourself and to spend more time on the paper(3-4 months). After this, if you don't see any improving and don't see the answer, you might ask for help to the authors. Don't be afraid to ask questions, it happens to all of us. A few months ago, I send an e-mail for the authors of one paper asking about an erratum(they write proper eqs. in a follow up paper, but haven't published an erratum to the original paper). These eqs. and paper was the basis of an analysis I have done recently which have been published, and I needed the correct eqs. before submission. After some exchange of e-mails, I work in a joint project with one of these authors. The tip would be to find a more relaxed author, like a PhD student.

What! Spend 3-4 months trying to work out something that can potentially be solved by the author spending maybe one hour answering a question in an email?

If you replaced "months" with "days" I would probably upvote you...

Yes it is - papers are often ambiguous, and hard to follow. It is only sensible to ask polite questions about points that you don't understand.
However, you are right, most people are busy, and while they will almost always welcome your interest, you do need to put in some time on the paper first.


text:
How can I find out the commission rates for agents recruiting international students to the UK?
Problem
In the UK, higher education providers often work with third parties called international agents to recruit international students.
In this system, an international student may request advice from an international agent. If they place that student with their client university, they gain a commission.
My problem is that I do not know whether my university is offering a decent enough incentive to international agents for them to promote us over their other clients.
What I've tried so far
To find out how much commission agents receive, I've tried:

Launching a survey on a LinkedIn group for higher education international recruitment specialists. This has had no responses
Googling the question, but I haven't found any suitable results
Searching on job boards, but the positions are often not advertised, as many international agent companies are small family-owned businesses

My question
This is a bit of a left-field question, but how can I find the commission rates for international agents when they recruit for rival universities?

"Commission payments may vary by institution, by agent and by market, but, based on figures from 101 institutions that provided information on both recruitment and spending, the average agent fee paid per student in 2013-14 was £1,767 ($2,725)." (Inside Higher Ed.) Or you could put in your own Freedom of Information Act requests, as Times Higher Education did.

To clarify, you are asking from a university administration vantage and want to make sure your university is paying enough money to capture the maximum number of international students.

@StrongBad: yes, exactly. multiple universities will use the same international agent. If university A offers 15% commission vs. 10% from university B, then the agents are more likely to represent A over B.

Make a Freedom of Information Act request.  Anyone can do this.  If you are concerned about possible charges, state that you would like to be given an estimate of any charges that would be incurred prior to them doing the work (photocopying, etc.).


text:
How should I properly cite an author with a variously credited name?
I have recently been dealing with an interesting conundrum.  I have several papers written by the same author, but in which the author's name is credited differently.
Some of these articles credit this author as:
Schön, with an umlaut.
Schoen, where the name is written according to the convention of adding "e", where an umlaut cannot be typed.
My citation style would ordinarily place a ---- under duplicate articles by one author, but the typographical variation in the credited names in the journal means that a reader of my references, who has not verified as I have that these articles are by the same person, might have the impression I was citing two different authors.  Equally, I worry that it would be quite inappropriate to alter the style in which the author's name was printed in the original journal.  Is there anyway I can indicate in my references that these are articles by the same person?

When I've cited papers by people who have used different names (or different forms of the same name), my entry in the reference list looked like "XXX (= YYY), title,etc." where XXX is the name used by the author in the cited article and YYY is the name by which the author is now commonly known.  No editors or referees have objected to this format (yet).

I think the appropriate thing to do is to cite each paper with the spelling that the author chose for that paper. In some way, this is no different than when someone publishes first under their maiden name and then under their married name. Or the other way around. Or when they legally change their name for whatever good or poor reason. Let the author of the paper choose what name they want to use, and use that in the reference.
The reasoning for this is that ultimately, a reference is not meant to educate a reader about the subtler points of identifying the author and their history with family names. The point of a reference is to identify a paper, and the paper has after all been published by the author using one and only one spelling of their name, whatever it may have been the day the paper was written/accepted/published.


text:
How do academics with teaching responsibilities, etc. find the time to do research?
How do academics manage to do research when they are lecturing and running courses, helping students, writing up assignments and tests, marking assignments and tests, supervising graduate students, going to meetings, doing admin, having personal lives, etc. ?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please note that comments can only be migrated once; further off-topic comments may be deleted.

This question should better ask as "how much time do academics have to do non-researching responsibilities?"

I disagree with the previous comment: the question asks how to manage things, not for information about loads

I'm unsure if this question should have been changed from its original focus on mathematicians to its current generic form. Thoughts welcome at https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3726/should-this-question-have-been-kept-discipline-specific

Who has time? Who has time? But then if we never take time, how can we ever have time? https://youtu.be/hA6ygR4o8s4

Grad students.  Who do you think does most of the actual work of research?  And in some universities, if you bring in sufficient grant money, you can buy yourself out of at least part of your teaching load.

@jamesqf In answer to your first rhetorical question, this is usually not true in e.g. (pure) mathematics

@Yemon Cho: OK, math is probably different.  My experience is with CS & physical sciences, where the professor in charge of a given lab/project might spend a couple of hours a week discussing the research progress & direction.

How does anyone "find the time" to do anything? The answer is that mathematicians don't "find the time", the time is already there and they make use of it. Your premise that those other activities you mentioned already fill up 100% of the time is simply incorrect. In particular, summers, breaks and other periods with no teaching offer a convenient and relatively distraction-free environment for doing research. But even teaching is not mutually exclusive with doing some research.

Dan Romik, This answer only provides half of the solution. The other half, according to Richard Feynman, is to negotiate a reduced workload of the work that is not related to research. And even then, this is something that Richard Feynman struggled quite a bit with. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2001/04/transition-academia-negotiating-your-way-teaching-sanity

I am sure you, me and many others are doing research when they eat,before they sleep,when they are watching a football game.
I think you do not "find time". You use the time you have.
The important thing is that you do not have to do research for three hours a day.
I usually say to myself "Ok today you have time to think about problem X for 30 minutes. Use 20 minutes of them.Others will not". And indeed,sometimes in these 20 minutes an idea may come.
(P.S.)When you teach you become better at mathematics.
(P.S. 2) I miss those times when I was undergraduate and I could spent 5 hours for research every day.

Or you create time.

@Wildcard Physicists tell me that if you travel very, very fast, then time slows down.

@FedericoPoloni that's useless for you, since upon return you'll discover you actually wasted more time than if you remained stationary.

Really it depends on how you put your priorities. The list you have made is a perfect summary of legitimate excuses one can make to abstain from thinking of mathematical problems when you are in no mood for them. In reality, the activities you listed do not need to take too much time unless you schedule them all over the week and all over the day. Teaching usually takes 3 days a week (2 if you are lucky), leaving you 4 other days. Within those 3 days, you normally teach about 3 hours per day, leaving you another 13 (assuming you are awake 16 hours per day). To make a decent assignment or test takes about half an hour if you have a clear idea what skills you want to check. Grading is a nightmare if you give 20 problems on each test and try to distinguish between 3 and 4 on a 10 point scale but it gets much easier and faster if you give 6 problems, use a 4 point scale, and have faith in the law of large numbers that will level out minor grading deviations over the semester.
This leaves just students, committees, and personal life. In my experience, those activities take exactly as much time as you are willing to spend on them. You have all options between opening your door at the beginning of your office hours and locking it at the end and running after each individual student in each of your classes urging him to come to your office to discuss his performance, etc. As to the committees, normally you are not obliged to be on more than two and those usually meet for at most 3 hours (very few people can endure longer meetings) once every two weeks or so. As to the personal life, you are the only one to choose its style and intensity though some choices have long range implications.
In other words, you can control your time to a great extent, so, when you are really into something and are making progress on a problem, you can easily downsize everything else to the bare minimum and free up a lot of time. The problem is that such moments are extremely rare and most of the time you feel like a helpless idiot who cannot figure out the simplest thing and should be kicked out for being a useless wreck. Then, to justify your existence, you start stretching other activities and can easily fill all available time with them, creating an illusion of a busy and productive day and thus keeping your self-esteem afloat.

Downvoted for the implication that the typical workweek is 7 days at 16 hours of work.

@CapeCode fedja didn't say (or imply to me) that the working week is 7x16, but that the time available is 7x16. Taking three days from that leaves four. Some of that four will be committees etc., some will be personal life.

The other answers are spot on - you do not need to find time, but use it.
On the other hand, there are very busy times, e.g. terms where I teach too many courses or courses that take of lot of time to prepare. In these times I usually try to reserve at least half a day per week where I do not put any appointments and do research. I make very few exceptions and most of the time these slots are quite productive.
Other simple tricks to work quietly is to simply close the office door for your research periods or work at other places…

You need to make a schedule that takes into account your needs to be able to the research work you're supposed to do. You can then minimize the time spent on  activities that you don't find all that useful (like grading homework, making homework assignments, etc.), while making sure you get enough quality time for research. What you want to avoid is having your research time broken up into small pieces during which you can get hardly anything useful done.
Many people would ideally want to have large blocks of several hours of uninterrupted study time. E.g. you can put a 3 hour block from 9 am till 12 pm, and another one from 2 pm till 5 pm. Then all your other work that you don't value as much as research work can be crammed into the two hours from 12 pm and 2 pm. This means that you're assigning less quality time for things such as grading homework, e.g. you can do that while eating lunch. On some days you may have to spend a few hours doing other things like teaching, on those days you can perhaps only fit one 3 hour research block into your schedule.
Assigning quality time for research is very important. If you try to get to a more efficient schedule where you work in smaller blocks, you may benefit on the short run, but you'll tend to not go the extra mile with your research work, which will then suffer on the long run. Suppose e.g. that you have just one hour to work on a problem, then you'll tend to not start doing something that would be half finished when investigate a marginal issue. If an approach to attack a problem is not working well and to get to the bottom of that you could write a program to do some simulations, then just the idea of having a half finished program will put you off from even embarking on that, and because it's just to investigate why the method isn't working, you'll tend to just ditch that approach and move on. However, by systematically taking such decisions, you may miss valuable insights on the long run.
You can't predict when you would gain a valuable insight. You won't notice what you have missed,  but after several years you may notice that your colleagues have had more success with their research work than you.

Great answers up here saying to use the time you have. But what if there is really no time? You have to sacrifice something to work on your research project. In my experience I see people in academia sacrificing the following, from the most frequent to least:

Family
Sleep time
Time spent with friends
Time spent socializing
Leisure (there is usually not much free time left)
Nothing. They just hack up a few low quality publications for check marks.
Work time

My favorite is actually #7, but I'm surprised how few people sacrifice other work for more productive research work. Drop a class or few, re-negotiate work load, talk your way out of bureaucracy, paperwork, admin meetings, useless conferences, etc. Do research during office hours. Let students do simpler parts of your research work. Finally, change a university to one that values research more and willing to pay you for it.

Unfortunately, various of the factors you list are interconnected. For instance, "change a university" may give you more office hours time for research, and thus more time for your family - if it weren't for the issue that the university that values research less is where your family is, and the one that values research more means you don't see your family all that much at all due to distance. Likewise, "drop a class or few" - fine. But that may lower your chances to get in touch with "students [to] do simpler parts of your research", so in the end you might have even less time to do ...

... the "high-level" research you are striving to do.

By letting other things go.  Which is easy enough to do when you've got that itch!  (The itch to... work on an interesting problem, to read or edit a collaborator's draft, to program a simulation, to look for and read related papers, etc.)


text:
How to communicate with the advisor if someone wants to downgrade his PhD to Master in university A and then apply for PhD in university B?
I am a M.Sc. graduated from a developing country and I recently got admitted for PhD in one of the reputed universities in Canada (rank 20-30th world-wide), say university A. In fact, because of the compulsory military service I could not exit the country with an M.Sc. admission letter, so I ended up applying for the PhD programs.
In general, I am completely happy to do my PhD in A and the university is considered a good place to research, however I thought that by doing research with great scientists there and completing a M.Sc. degree I probably would have a better chance of getting a PhD admission from a better university (e.g. a top-10 place), say university B.
As I have an interest to work as faculty in future, studying in B may slightly  increase my chance for my future carrier.
So, I would like to know is it anything bad or immoral to express my idea to my potential advisor when I arrived in Canada? Please note that I would be perfectly happy to work as a PhD student under his supervision in case that he is unwilling of the downgrade but I fear that the proposal in itself burns the bridges or implies that I have not interested in doing research with him. All in all, I would like to know that what is the best (safest) way to express my desire to my advisor?
P.S: regarding the university policy, I checked and the university accept it if the advisor agrees.

You first need to check university A's policies on duplicate degrees. Many universities will not issue an M.Sc. to someone who already has one.

I checked and the university does it if the advisor agrees.

While getting a degree from a top school seems like a good idea, the process i.e. getting an advisor, relocating, atmosphere, getting a good topic to work on, making sure you get publications, graduating etc. might be a bit of hassle. If you are planning to stay in Academia after your PhD, at least in some fields, the advisor (his/her name) might carry more weight than the ranking of the school.

Since a recommendation letter from A weight much in an application to B, you may want to be sure that your professor in A would support your plan fully and enthusiastically.

I would recommend not announcing your intention upon arrival.  Wait at least a month, maybe a semester.  Build a relationship.  Once you do that, this communication will happen naturally.

Your wording here is perfectly fine for explaining your situation in university A. Your advisor is the one who works there and knows about internal dynamics of the university.
And also, name of the institution is important at a certain level. What values you as a scientist is the quality of your publications and thesis. Finishing a PhD in university B might be a challenge, but you can set your goal to make better publications than people who have PhD degree from B.
For the last point, there is always postdoc, which will probably be the most productive period of your life. You could finish your postdoc at university B and achieve your goals anyways.

You need to check policies of your university.
In general, if you don't pass qualification exam you can be transferred to Master degree. Please make sure that is case with your university and program.
It is important to do it before qualification exam.
if your university doesn't have one. you need to consider dropping as an only viable option.
edit: In case that your university policies allow downgrading, you just need to be straightforward and communicate with you advisor clearly that you dont want PhD degree from the present university.
One thing you should be aware, will change of institution affect you visa situation? you need to make sure this first to avoid troubles.

Thanks for your answer. As I stressed in the question content my main concern is the way to communicate my idea to my advisor. In fact, the university can downgrade my PhD to M.Sc. upon the agreement of the advisor.

@CoderInNetwork ok Now it is clear, I will edit to include more.

However I dont comment on your decision to do so, I dont understand why people are commenting regarding this issue because that was not your question. Am I right?


text:
How do I deal with the overwhelming ambiguity of my project?
I have a bachelor degree in applied mathematics and I'm currently doing a PhD in molecular genetics as a computational biologist. I started in my thesis lab in January and since then I've had serious problems understanding exactly what my supervisors expect me to do.
Here are a few of the underlying issues:

I've had to transition from a first principles based approach to problem solving to a top down, data-oriented worldview - something that has not come easily.
There are no upper-year students doing a project similar to mine that I can shadow while I learn the ropes.
My supervisors talk about my project and direction at a very high-level, so the details of what I should be doing or how I should be doing them are unclear.
I face a constant stream of discouragement, be it my peers succeeding while I don't, my supervisors just expecting me to 'figure it out' when it comes to the details, my unsupportive family, etc... and it's affecting my ability to work.
I did a number of very technical projects in my undergrad and I enjoyed them immensely. I have little love for my current project - likely a symptom of not succeeding.

How do I deal with this? Is it a normal part of the process to feel lost and hopeless - even this early on?
Most importantly: At what point should I cut my losses and drop out or switch departments?

"My supervisors talk about my project and direction at a very high-level, so the details of what I should be doing or how I should be doing them are unclear.".  If you had a clear problem with a detailed path to the solution then this would not be the research. Embrace the ambiguity to show off your creativity.

Why is this tagged [tag:health-issues]?

Have you told your supervisors, explicitly, that you are uncertain how to proceed and you feel you need more more detailed advice in order to make progress?

@CoderInNetwork How is "Add one drop from one of those colourful liquids to the bacteria stew every day and protocol every slight bit of change" not research?

@sgf: If there are no decisions to make, you are not doing research.  What you described is being a technician performing grunt work for someone else's research.

@BenVoigt Let's aks the Oxford Dictionary, shall we? "Research: The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." Doesn't say anything about creativity or novel solutions. And by your definition, the moment I've written myself a detailed path to establish some facts, I've  stopped doing research? Grunt work is an integral part of scientific research, and to me at least it constitutes research by itself.

@sgf: Now you need to ask the Dictionary what a PhD is and how to get one. No idea what it says about that really, but there should be some modifier to research that has at least a relationship to "independent". In short: You are not supposed to have to be told how to do your research in detail any more.

@sgf: "Grunt work is an integral part of scientific research"... yes, generally, although the amount depends on the field.  "it constitutes research by itself"... most people would not agree, and what is certain is that it conveys no ownership of research.  The rules for patents and the rules for publications agree, authorship and ownership of research goes to the parties who have a hand in directing it.

@skymningen I certainly don't think it's the kind of research that should earn you a phd or a patent, I was just questoning CoderInNetwork's overly restrictive notion of what does and doesn't constitute research.

It's not completely clear from your question, but if you are not interested in the specific research topic you are doing, that isn't good. And communication with your supervisors is very important. I'm very familiar with the "talk about my project and direction at a very high-level" issue. To some extent this is unavoidable - your advisers cannot go into every detail with you. But they should also be willing to discuss specifics. I think this is one of those things where it's difficult to say anything even potentially useful without more details.

To start with, are you interested your research area? Or are you just frustrated because you don't know what to do? Would you prefer another research area? What drew you to this area from applied mathematics, anyway? What do you expect from your supervisors?

"my unsupportive family" Could you please elaborate, if you find don't mind? I believe this to be a very important point.

You went from a quite theoretical field to a much "softer" field with much less defined criteria, notions, goals - this is a difficult transition to make. Maybe the topic isn't for you, if it does not inspire you. Half a year is not too long a time to cut your losses. But make sure you identify what you'd rather do.

Is it a normal part of the process to feel lost and hopeless - even this early on?

Yes, it is very normal. Particularly early on. There are many things you do not know or understand yet. I spent at least a year of my Ph.D. on projects that never amounted to anything (literally), and know there were many times I asked myself these same questions.
Now to the more practical question:

How do I deal with this?

Based on my very similar Ph.D. experience, my best advice is to "own it". You need to convince yourself that you are doing the research that will go in your dissertation. It will take you personally making mistakes and learning from them. It will take you developing a workflow where you quickly prototype ideas so that the bad ones can be discarded without too much time lost. I would bet that although you feel like you are treading water, you are developing skills and insights that will be useful once you gain more traction.
For this to work, you may need to stop expecting your supervisors' directions. Instead, systematically "try stuff" on your own. Start by addressing some simple concrete question related to your project: try something naive and see why it breaks down. After you identify the flaws, think about and implement some naive modifications. Iterate on this process and document everything carefully. Use your supervisors as reviewers -- explain to them what you did and ask for feedback rather than direction. In my case, iterating this method led to solving a problem parallel to the one my supervisor had original posed, but in a more 'hot' area of research.
Finally, regarding this point:

I face a constant stream of discouragement, be it my peers succeeding while I don't, my supervisors just expecting me to 'figure it out' when it comes to the details, my unsupportive family, etc... and it's affecting my ability to work.

I often felt deeply discouraged as well. First, comparing yourself to your peers is a recipe for frustration. Avoid this at all costs (easier said than done, I understand). Second, I found exercising, pursuing my hobbies, and meditating all helped curb the day-to-day frustration of the "treading water" feeling.  Talking to other grad students, particularly from different disciplines, also helped. I found this feeling is far more common than some of my peers would let on -- and being able to open up to those a bit removed from your specific project was always helpful.

+1 for hobbies and exercising. Sitting in the office/lab the whole day and being frustrated can lead to severe health issues if you don't have a good way to come down and relax (talking from current experience here...).

I like this answer. I would add, in the "How to deal with it" section: Read the relevant literature. Try to summarize it for yourself in 2-5 pages (depending on how much literature). Look at it as a whole and think - what else would I like to know about this topic/biological system? Can my data answer that? Or think, do I find some of the answers given by the literature unsatisfactory/unconvincing? Can my data do a better job answering this? If I think about this another way, might I get a different answer? THEN try things.

@Dawn Agree completely!


text:
Professors meeting undergrads in social events
I know a professor in my university that I was close to when I was an undergrad, not in a academic setting, but in a social setting (church in my case). I did not take his class, but I do know that he is close to many other undergraduates in the social circle, and many of them do take his class.
While I'm fairly certain that he does not play favoritism, I'm unsure if the professor should withdraw himself from such social circle because he is bound to have his personal friends take his class, and that might be a potential conflict of interest. However, the town is a small college town, and it's unreasonable for him to switch to another social circle (church) since all churches are full of undergrads, and perhaps that is asking for too much.
How should professors behave in this situation? Is it ok for him to be part of a social circle with many undergrads, knowing that some of them may take his class in the future?

What's the alternative, in a small environment? Withdraw from all social activities to avoid present or future undergrads... or their parents... or their friends?

It would certainly be unreasonable to expect professors to leave a church because the church also has undergraduates in it.
What you're describing isn't really what's usually called a conflict of interest: the professor doesn't actually stand to gain in any concrete way by giving the student better grades.  What you're concerned about is bias, which is a real, but generally lesser, problem.  It's basically unavoidable to have some potential bias involving students - professors will inevitably end up with students who they know from outside school, or who are identifiably the children of a colleague or administrator or donor, or who we just find ourselves naturally liking (or disliking).
It is the responsibility of a professor to avoid letting this bias turn into favoritism, or even the appearance of favoritism, but the usual approach to this is to have clear standards and try to grade blindly (without knowing whose work we're grading), not to try to eliminate all possible sources of bias.

I grew up in a small university town, and I studied the same subject that my dad lectured. When he lectured me, the university had an extra moderation process for our marking. In that case there could have been a conflict of interest (if I got an A, it would have translated into a fee rebate, so, direct monetary benefit). But, my dad is a professional and was fair. The university had systems in place to help eliminate bias/favouritism, especially in the case where children/godchildren/family friends of the lecturer were being graded, but also, there is professional and personal integrity.

There are plenty of ways for professors to "make favorites" without knowing students ahead of time. It's up to the integrity of any professor to prevent such favoritism from impacting the learning of other students or the grading rigor for a course. Professors have the same ethical obligation with respect to categories such as race, gender, political affiliation, etc.
It isn't reasonable to expect a professor to withdraw from social circles where that professor might encounter students (or, for that matter, the parents of those students).
In some cases, it might be reasonable for a professor to recuse themselves from some other administrative action involving a student closely known to them (for examples: admissions, any sort of disciplinary action, awarding of scholarship money, etc) assuming there are other faculty who can easily fulfill those roles.

I agree. With regard to your last paragraph, though, I think that merely sharing a social circle (or even a few social circles), as opposed to having a close personal relationship alone is not reason enough for recusal. That alone is not (IMO) significantly more likely to bias you in favour of a student than his appearance, classroom behaviour or even gender. That is probably what you meant anyway, but I think it should be said clearly.

The role of a professor is to teach. Grading is an artefact of the educational system: a necessary evil, if you wish. Grading should be as objective as possible, and ideally a didactic tool. A professor that likes his students is motivated to do what's best for them in terms of learning.
To a see a professor as a referee in a grading competition is a symptom of what is wrong with the current academic status quo, where a university degree is a tool for social and economic advancement. In any case, a university is not the same as military hierarchy, where officers are not to mingle with the ranks. A university is, at least in principle, a place for the free interchange and creation of ideas, not only in the formal setting of the classroom, but always. A professor interaction with students outside the classroom is a good thing.

This doesn't appear to answer the question.

@BoundaryImposition It counters the premise of the question, therefore an answer it is.

@WeckarE.: It's better now than it was at the time.

We should assume, unless proven otherwise, that the Professor is professional and therefore he will assess and evaluate his students entirely fairly on the basis of objective criteria.
However, these extracurricular engagements may increase the opportunities for learning opportunities to arise with guidance by the teacher. I would see this as a good thing - the more such opportunities we can give our students the better.

While knowing students on a personal level certainly may add a layer of silent delight or frustration (depending on their respective performance), I would expect any significant favoritism to take place is very, very unlikely.
Besides, remember your professor was there first. So I would like to permute the question: Does this makes you (and your fellow students) feel to be expected to withdraw? Probably not :)

"I do know that he is close to many other undergraduates in the social circle, and many of them do take his class."  (The bolding is my own.)
The key word here is "close."  I don't know exactly what you mean by this, so I will include some specific examples in my answer.

How should he behave in this situation? Is it ok for him to be part of a social circle with many undergrads, knowing that some of them may take his class in the future?

Your university should have a policy posted online about this.  But the basic advice, I believe, is generally:

The professor should inform the department chair if there are any students on his class roster that are related to him or have a close friendship with him.  In other words, if Roger Smith is on his class roster, and he sometimes goes for a hike on Sunday afternoons with Roger, in a small group, and then has him over for dinner -- the department chair needs to be told.
On the other hand, if he sometimes gives Ellen Jones a ride home after church because he lives in the same direction as Ellen, that's probably not worth telling the department chair about.  However, in case of doubt, it's best to inform the chair and let him/her decide if anything needs to be done.

If a close friendship starts to develop during the course of the semester, the professor should either back off and put the developing friendship on hold until after the semester is over, or proceed as above.  Reason: it's not enough to behave ethically.  It's also important to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Yes, it's okay for him to be part of a social circle with undergrads, knowing that some of them may take his class in the future.  However, if the department chair is getting these notifications, semester after semester (i.e. there are a lot of Roger Smiths), the chair might sit him down and ask him to try to expand his social circle to include more people his own age.


text:
Disgruntled with my supervisor - be truthful about this in my semi-annual PhD report?
I am just done with 2 years of my Ph.D. study. I have some issues with my supervisor. He is repressive, forces his vision on me, e,g, he wants publications in one particular area (and loads of them) to bolster his reputation. He is rude and arrogant and behaves bossy for no reason.
More importantly, I believe that I have not learned the skills which I wanted to during my study. I spend all my time writing mediocre papers and learning very little. I want to mention that in my six-monthly report.
Now the question is that I cannot change my supervisor, I do not care to either. Fighting with him is not my goal. He is incapable of teaching me the skills I want to learn and I have to learn by myself, which I will do. But I wonder if I must say what I feel in my report truthfully and boldly. If I do that, it will annoy my supervisor and there is a good chance he might even decide to not support me in future if I need something.
Advice/suggestions?

Now the question is that I cannot change my supervisor, I do not care to either. — Oh dear God, why not? What do you think you're going to get out of enabling this bully?  Do you really think they're going to suddenly become supportive when you defend your thesis, or when you ask him for recommendation letters? Get. Out.

Yes, they will never support me. But in order to change I need another advisor and mine is a politician, so no one wants to antagonize him.

I didn't say change. I said get out. Don't waste five+ years of your life being abused and then have nothing to show for it. Fire your advisor and move on with your life.

@JeffE Do we know that this question refers to US system? (5+ years is very rare in UK system, admittedly for Procrustean reasons)

@YemonChoi Is wasting three years with nothing to show for it really that much better?

@JeffE It does depend on the particular case and the particular motivation for attempting to obtain a PhD. And if at the end one does get a PhD, having learned a bunch of things despite the supervisor, that may be a net positive. (But I hesitate to say that the OP should definitely persevere in what may be a lost cause)

Hey, guys, the question is about what to do with the 6-monthly report. I am not quitting my Ph.D. Being an international student I learned about cultures of other countries and now I am in a position to go anywhere in the world and work with people. And I still have 1 year to learn what  I can, have not given up. My question is that should I be bold in the 6-monthly report? --The period of bullying is over. I won't let that happen anymore.

Just so you know. I wrote my mind and I feel happy about it. I know that it will not matter. But if I cannot put my point now, I probably am not worthy of being a researcher, because as a researcher I need to question everything and be bold about. I feel light and sharp! I do not rely on one man for my career, to the hell with his support.

Who are you making your report to? The advisor? The department? The university? The funding agency?

First and most important suggestion: Seriously consider changing supervisors, and if you can't, give serious thought to finding another university/institute at which to do your Ph.D., contacting relevant researchers and if you find someone who's willing to advise you, making the switch.
But about your actual question:

A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.

― Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist
Only be honest and forthcoming in your report if you want to have an out-and-out fight with your advisor. You might want to do that for various reasons, but assuming you aren't, don't write what you've told us.
Instead, bury it into nuance and insinuation. i.e. without denigrating what you've actually written and where you've published, put it in the context of the hope of writing something deeper or more meaningful, or publishing someplace more central. Also, mention things you would have liked to have done these past 6 months, and explain how the efforts gone towards preparing publications have not allowed you to invest as much time as you would have liked in the other pursuits. That sounds super-polite and respectful while giving off enough hints.