text:
Did I make a mistake in being too honest in the PhD interview?
I had an interview on Tuesday on a PhD topic and during the interview I was a little nervous.
I regret saying that I don’t like machine learning since the PhD topic requires using machine-learning tools. I explained that I don’t like it since I took a machine-learning course at university, and the professor taught us the subject in an unpleasant and boring way. His teaching manner seriously wasn’t clear.
I also told them that I will give myself a chance and learn it again in a better way since they don’t require deep experience in it.
I shouldn’t have told them this information because it could be an easy reason to reject me.
I have asked the professor in the interview whether he liked my profile. His answer was that he still has other students to interview... I mean if he did like my profile he could have simply said yes.
I still have some hope because if he didn’t find me suitable he would have rejected me the next day. Instead, when I asked him when I would get an answer to my application he told me next week.
I’m feeling bad. I was overly honest, and sometimes was too informal with my speech and facial expressions.
Did I make a mistake in being too honest in the PhD interview?
Update: I have read an article the professors have sent me where they have used a machine learning tool. I made further search and I was able to understand it. I have been invited to another interview and I did so well. They were friendly with me and I kept my honesty in everything. I asked them more questions and they clarified that there are different methods in the PhD and machine learning is just one of them. I told them that I no longer have fear towards ML since I no longer find it complicated. At the end I explained my interest that meets the goal of the PhD program. They will give me the final answer after one or two weeks. Please wish me luck :) I am glad that I have used Academia site and I thank everyone for their comments and answers that I found beneficial.

"I have asked the professor in the interview whether he liked my profile" you put him in uneasy situation and his answer was the most polite way out. For some this question might be a larger error than one you ask about.

@Džuris I didn't mean by question whether he will accept me or not, I just meant that after presenting my information and answring their questions, I needed to know whether he finds me a suitable candidate, and it doesn't matter if he takes me or not. I was nervous and I needed to know his opinion about me. I mean they care to know how much I'm interested in joining their research team so where is the problem if I also care to know if they are interested in me as well.

You need to be more patient with hiring processes. If they think that you are good fit, they will let you know soon enough after the interview. Another point: They are not judging you as a person, but they are trying to find the best person for the job. In the same manner, you should find a job that is a good fit for yourself (rather than just any job). The fact that you don't like machine learning while the job heavily relies on it means that the mistake was to apply for that job in the first place.

IMHO you can never be too honest (unless you are disclosing classified information or hurting someone else by being honest). Of course, honesty can backfire. (In my own case, I become a persona non-grata in Swedish academia by being honest about my mental health issues. But despite that, which caused several years of constant pain and made me lose any hope of realising my dreams, I still think honesty is a virtue.)

@lighthousekeeper I agree with you.

@AndreasRejbrand Honesty is a virtue indeed. I like to keep my honesty otherwise I won't be feeling good. But next time I will have better way of presenting my thoughts. Thank you and I hope you are well.

On the one hand, "explaining" that you don't like machine-learning because a professor taught in an unpleasant and boring way and his teaching manner seriously wasn’t clear is rather like saying you can't separate content from process. Either way, it might leave you open to purely personal interpretation.
I went to a techie interview in my best suit and when asked "Do you mind crawling around behind people's desks?" I said "I'd rather not when I'm dressed like this but otherwise, fine…" only to be told I failed for refusing to crawl around… Duh!

@RobbieGoodwin I agree with you. Initially I can blame the professor who taught me but I can't carry out this blame as a constant excuse. If I don't work on it then it is my mistake. I just didn't know that I will be applying for a PhD that requires ML. But when I read about the topic I saw that they don't require an experience in it and its just a tool being used. I no longer regret mentioning that I don't like it. This has taught me a lesson for my future applications.

@RobbieGoodwin - a decent interviewer would have laughed and said "We wouldn't expect you to ruin your interview suit; normal dress code is smart casual" or something like that. Maybe you dodged a bullet with that job.

@AndreasRejbrand Honesty is a virtue - really? Honesty is a commodity that you should trade economically. How would you answer these questions? 1) Does this make me look fat? 2) What is the minimum price you will accept? 3) If we don't remove our missiles, will you sink our ships?

@OscarBravo: I like to believe that we live in a world in which people are not selfish, but want what's best for all people. For instance, when I was interviewed for my current job, I was asked what salary I expected. I answered that I would find it difficult to pay my rent etc. with anything below 14 000 SEK/month, and was truly surprised when I was given 29 000 SEK/month and saw that number increase significantly the following year. I even told our CEO that I really don't need that much money. Was able to give a lot to Amnesty. (Today I work only 50% due to health issues.)

@AndreasRejbrand I was making a slightly tongue-in-cheek point: There are plenty of circumstances where telling the literal truth could be very disadvantageous, especially where the questioner has no right to know the answer. Well done for helping out Amnesty, BTW - great choice :-)

If that was truly an honest answer, do you want to be part of a project that use machine learning? You will probably want to answer that question before accepting any potential offers to join the group.

I want to make two points here, both are indirect answers to your question, but still open to interpretation with regard to your specific interview.

Interviews are less like taking an exam, and more like going on a date. It is possible to do everything right, and still not click. Equally, it is possible that you do many things wrong, but the other person is willing to take a chance on you, because they see something they like and willing to invest on. It is therefore not really worth it mulling over the details of the date in any meaningful sense, since you'll never really know what it was that did or didn't click. Having said that, just like a date, you would want to sound honest, but not arrogant, and generally not put the other person in an uncomfortable position for the sake of 'honesty' if you expect to establish some sort of relationship with them going forward.

There is always a way to rephrase a negative into a positive, and it typically pays off to do so. You come across as a more approachable, less negative person, who sees the good and the opportunity in things, as opposed to the negatives. It's generally a good way to go through life, too. So, in your case, you could have rephrased

"it was boring and it was the prof's fault but I'll look at it if I really have to"

into

"I am reasonably comfortable with the topic; however, I felt it was not given the time it deserved in uni, and my exposure to it so far has been more theoretical. Therefore I look forward to seeing an interesting application of this field in a real-life setting, and to improving my skills in this area: I'm very thankful for the training opportunities on offer in this job -- this is in fact one of the reasons that led me to apply here (blah blah, continue on positive spin)".

Regarding the second point, as a personal anecdote, I was taught this by my own PhD supervisor during my PhD. A large part of my PhD involved improving a field in which one of the most influential papers had many (in my opinion) naïve assumptions which weakened its conclusions. I approached this in my work from the point of view of "we build Y which doesn't suffer from the errors in X, who did bad things x,y,z". My supervisor thought this was unnecessarily harsh and had me rephrase it as "X pushed the field forward by proposing X. We improved on this idea by addressing improvements in areas x,y,z, which we believe make the general direction proposed by X even stronger".
Now, "technically", both versions say exactly the same thing, and both are 'honest'. However, imagine I wanted to invite Prof X to be my external examiner in my PhD viva at the end of my PhD. Which of the two formulations do you think would predispose them more positively towards my thesis?

Thank you for your answer. I liked your perspective at looking at an interview as a date. Since I have previously received many rejections, even to positions that I fulfil their requirements, I began to doubt myself, my capabilities, and that also decreased my self-confidence. The personal example you have given makes sense since people prefer to use their own paraphrasing which something normal in humans. So the answer would be using the formulation of your external examiner to get a better result even though using your own might be more self satisfying.

Regarding your first point, you shouldn't obsess over things you might've done wrong, but you absolutely should reflect on and try to improve on them. In my (more corporate) experience, interviews are typically much less "let's see if we click" and much more "you need to give good answers to proceed". "Clicking" may also be necessary and it make up for a few bad answers, but ultimately there are still good and bad answers and not reflecting on those is just shooting yourself in the foot. If there were really no point to reflecting on the interview, your answer would be a lot shorter.

Thank you @NotThatGuy I will improve my answers in future interviews. :) as well as my knowledge and skills.

@NotThatGuy You are certainly correct, but part of this is also that industry has, in an attempt to make interviews more objective, turned them more into exams than traditional interviews. In my experience that's largely not the case in academia (yet?).

To underline - if OP came to me for an interview and said "I don't like ML but I'll use it if I have to" I would probably laugh and say "same here, same here". I'm also not super-big on polite phrasing in my interviews, but I understand every candidate who chooses their words carefully (and would suggest my own students to do the same).

@xLeitix I agree to an extent, if for instance the comment was delivered in a lighthearted manner, and hinting about the interviewee's educated preferences rather than stresses and frustrations with said technology. In that sense, it might even come across as a "positive" comment, about the merits of seeing beyond non-trendy tech. But I feel that's different to what is described here. Also, I'm not necessarily advocating for "polite phrasing" or unnecessary "wordiness" here. Just that it's better to engage people from a 'positive' mindset, rather than lead conversations towards 'negative' ones

A user attempted to edit the answer to add a comment, apologies I didn't retain the username, but I didn't accept the edit because I didn't think it was appropriate as an edit, but worth adding as a comment. The gist of it, which I agree with, was that "rephrasing in positive" terms does not mean "lie". It just means try to approach from a positive angle. If you truly do not like neural networks and would rather not work with them when the position demands it, then this may not be a good position for you, and it may be worth negotiating to either clarify expectations, or decide not to apply.

It probably depends how you put it.
If you said: "I find machine learning boring, because my prof taught it in a boring way.", and machine learning is a key technique in the PhD: Yes, this was wrong, and for obvious reasons.  (Then again, if you really find it boring: Why did you apply for that position in the first place.)
If, on the other hand, you made it clear that you had issues with machine learning & you were skeptical about certain points, since those were swept under the rug in your lecture, but you generally made it clear that in fact you would like to understand the topic better, this can in fact be beneficial: It makes it clear that you are actively thinking about the topic, that you are a critical thinker, and that you would like to understand things better. This is far better than someone who just says "Yes, topic X is great." just because it is listed in the job advertisement.

Thank you :) I hope the professors take it into consideration when I told them that I will give myself a chance and learn it better than before.

@Unknown As I said, professors will likely appreciate critical thinking more than someone who just says "Yes, all of this is great.".  And if they don't, you might prefer not to work with them.

“if you really find it boring: Why did you apply for that position in the first place” – well, lots of people nowadays think that one must pretty much do machine learning to stay relevant. (Whether this is accurate or it is wise to act accordingly, are two debatable questions.)

@leftaroundabout Sure, but if you must do something boring, better do it in a well paid job!

Possibly you made a mistake, but only the professor can judge that. But, honesty is still a good path here. Better that than to wind up in a situation that isn't productive for you.
You want a position in which everyone is comfortable. Hiding your feelings or your background is probably counterproductive.
But the past is the past and can't be undone. Work on other options in case this one doesn't work out.
But, if all of your options involve machine learning, then a somewhat more positive statement is that you feel unprepared as your course was poorly done. If you are willing to work on it (not "I hate it, but...") then this might be enough. But if ML really isn't your cuppa-tea then move on.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment. We can only move comments to chat once, but you can use the chat as long as you wish keeping a respectful tone.

If you find ML boring, you should not apply for a position that requires it to a significant extent. A 3 year PhD is a very long time to do something that you dislike. So, hiding that you dislike a topic is not doing you any favours.
If, on the other hand, you are interested in learning ML, that's a different issue, but even so, you need to know if the prof requires you to know the stuff from the beginning or is happy for you to learn on the job. Here some more politic answer is probably more suitable.
Others have commented that the past is the past. Let it run its course.
For your future interviews, decide ahead of time what you want to say. Prepare a list of things you want to say or ask ahead of time, so that you don't accidentally bump into unexpected answers of yours that surprise you as much as the interviewers.
Update There was a comment that questioned how tactful one should be when expressing the dislike. Basically, that's on OP, but I'll sketch what happens if someone is not reasonably open about it.
If OP knows they do not like the topic, they should consider being explicit about it. They are fooling both their supervisor and themselves if they hide this fact.
If they are unsure, and think that they may learn to like it, they can be more careful in the formulation. But still, what if it turns out that they just convinced themselves wrongly? After 2 years of investment, will they leave the project and their PhD and supervisor hanging?
Now, one could say that people may develop a dislike to the topic anyway. Yes, that's possible. But, consider a marriage. Would you rather start out with a partner you actively dislike from the beginning with unclear expectations that things will improve in the hope you pull through? Or rather with a partner which you like where there, while, of course may be a risk of intermittent crisis or long-term deterioration, you still at least start from a position of justified hope that things will work out fine?
While there is always some leeway how one can reinterpret what one wants to do in terms of what a position requires, I cannot recommend being untruthful about one's dislike of a particular direction. That's too much of a bend. There are enough interesting PhD topics to waste one's life with unproductive busywork.

"hiding that you dislike a topic is not doing you any favours" - this seems illogical. If you feel capable of judging whether the pros of the PhD outweigh the cons for you, then telling them does little more than giving them a reason to reject you (because they would see this as a negative). The only time where it might make sense to share this (without saying you "hate" it) is when you want their help to make this judgement, because perhaps you don't have enough information or experience to make this judgement yourself. If it's just to be honest, fair enough, but that's a different argument

@NotThatGuy Sorry, but I cannot recommend that a candidate hides a dislike. Perhaps the committee likes the candidate and may be ready to modify what they expect from them. If not, life's too short to do a PhD in a disliked topic. I strongly discourage that. That's how you get frustrated and unhappy PhD students asking questions at SE about how to salvage their dissertation. What's the point of suffering for 3 years (and probably longer, since motivation will be low)? Pick a topic you love, and are enthusiastic about.

I'm not saying you should go in the opposite direction with your answer, rather just that "hiding that you dislike a topic is not doing you any favours" is unclear and misleading. It implies that it would not further their goals, which may be blatantly untrue if their goal is to not get rejected (regardless of whether they would ultimately be happy with their studies, which you can't know for sure anyway). I'm simply suggesting that you clarify the possible outcomes of not hiding it. Also, is simply saying "I hate it" appropriate or would you recommend a more tactful response?

@NotThatGuy "Not doing you any favours" is precisely that. I chose the formulation with care. If someone's goal is to suffer for 4-5 years in a field they dislike and force themselves to go through it, is that a favour? Why not pick a PhD in a topic of interest? Will they be happy with their studies? My long-term experience in academia shows one thing consistently to be critical in a PhD: one has to like topic & supervisor; all else is secondary. It will need a lot of work to convince me otherwise. As for diplomacy, I said "dislike", not "hate"; other responses made even better formulations.

Thank you for your answer and all comments. ML is a basic tool in the PhD but all other aspects I'm interested in. The reason I dislike ML is its complexity but I like its applications that's why I told myself if I understand it better by self study and PhD training everything might work out in the end. But I agree with you in case I dislike the whole PhD. Even if the PhD was for one year only it would just waste my time and worsen my mental health.

I hope they give me the answer tomorrow :D so that I stop thinking about it and move on -.-

@Unknown Hopefully you get a result to your liking. Note that if you dislike ML because of its complexity for the project, you'd better have an alternative in mind, because the people who advertise a position usually have a reason why they go down a particular route.

@CaptainEmacs I have no idea about the outcome but if they accepted me then I will go for it because I have been applying for more than a year. And I rarely make interviews :( But if I faced a lot of problems then I will quit and if not I will be brave and dive in it

But still logically if I was extremely a NO for them then they are supposed to reject in the same day right? And not make me wait till the next week

@Unknown Nobody can make predictions based on duration of wait. Perhaps they go through a process of form-filling. Perhaps they first notify people they want to have. Just wait and see. If you really are looking for a position for a long time, you may want to consider less rigid constraints on what you want to do. Still, if you decide to do research, whatever it is, do it with enthusiasm. Never at half-measure.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Wait and see. Can't change the outcome, anyway, so what's the use of worrying? Besides, "I failed the PhD interview because I was too honest, too informal" sounds like ...beep!

yeah you're right. I'm no longer worried. It's not the end of the world. Maybe it would better for me not to get accepted. I made it clear what aspects of the PhD I'm interested in and also willing to work on what I dislike (ML) so the rest is on the Supervisors

Cheer up! I bet you'l pass. Let us know.  IMO  ML is the new AI. (as the buzzword AI was embarrassingly shifted, on expiry. )

Thank you! :) I have dreamt today that they accepted me LOL. I was thinking in sending them a follow up email tomorrow since I have done the interview on last Tuesday. But I'm not sure if that would be annoying to them since they told me  they will reply to me "next week" when I asked them. Oh I will make a celebration and a small party if they accepted me.

No, you didn't make a mistake.  You will spend several years of your life studying for a PhD, and it is vital that you are genuinely interested in the topic as there will be times during your PhD where your motivation is sorely tried.  I'd suggest you would be better off studying a different topic that is closer to your real interests.
Pursuing a PhD on a topic you didn't like - that would be a mistake.

I just had a PhD interview so I can relate.
(1) It is always good to be honest. So, you both find the right match
(2) Show motivation. And show you do not know now but you are willing to learn
(3) It depends on what program you apply. If Ph.D in Machine learning then apparently not the right match. Others, less relevant. Also your interest can grow and change over time.
You have not done anything wrong by being honest. But the information you give is relevant for your application.

Thank you for your answer @supperAlpha.  I wish you success in your PhD journey :)

If you like my answer, you might like my insight page too: https://www.facebook.com/anhEuropeAsia

For job interview, I always go for harsh honestly. I am web developer and I consider it as luxury I can afford because there is a lot of offers.
And basically, if you are note hired because you are too honest, I guess you don't want to work in this company. As Tasos said, yes, you have stay positive and not looking depressed in advance about what you will do. Job interviews are mostly about personality, you have to look friendly and serious but you don't have to disguise yourself.
And as a personal anecdote, I was looking for a job one year ago. I have been asked about what could stop me from achieving my personal goals. I answer Covid-19. I did not have the job because I was too pessimistic… Well… I am glad, I don't work for them.

You are lucky to have a lot of offers. I rarely get invited for an interview. I have noticed that you're from France. Bonjour from Liban :)

Bonjour ! Well, yes, I said, it's a really a chance. When I was doing a more competitive job, I did'nt not had the same opinion

What you like and dislike aren't really relevant to a job. You want to give off enthusiasm for the job, and you to do that you can talk about subject areas you are passionate about. But mostly you should talk about how you experience, expertise, and how you can perform in an area they talk about.
Yeah, it's a mistake to go into how you don't like it, and how it was taught. Because that's not relevant to you doing the job, a lot of people hate certain aspects of their job but they do it anyway because they need to.
Interviews are tough, and it is an important career skill to develop, so learn from it and don't sweat it to much.

Actually like and dislike are relevant to your life. And that is more important than any job. There is little worse than slaving away at something you hate.

Unless you are desperate for a job and need the money to avoid starvation, like and dislike are vital considerations. I can't imagine anything worse, academically, than doing a PhD in something you aren't interested in.


text:
Are university professors allowed to use any computer they want for work?
Do universities restrict the brand or manufacturer of computers their professors are allowed to use for work?
May a PhD advisor ban certain computer brands?
Are there any restrictions on using your own funding to buy certain brands of computers?
Corporate restricts company computers allowed for security reasons but the university doesn’t technically own any of the professors work or consider it their proprietary knowledge so are they allowed the control the electronic storage system of it?

Answers will vary widely between universities and may even depend on national laws, therefore I voted to close the question.

the university doesn’t technically own any of the professors work true, but if you use your computer to grade papers, it will contain personal data of students, and that is a thorny issue.

University purchasing systems are very complicated and they are all different.  It is common for universities to make a contract with a supplier stating that they will use that supplier exclusively in exchange for a discount.  Often there will be loopholes.
Your supervisor can certainly refuse to purchase certain brands with funds the supervisor controls.
If you have a grant, you will be required to follow the university's purchasing policies.
Traditionally, most universities allow faculty and students to do their work using personal computers of any type.  However, this could be limited for confidential information.  There are laws limiting the use of educational and medical information which vary from place to place, and there are also policies.

I'll add to this that in every university I've worked in, the university will have seperate supply contracts for both Apple and PC - i've never been somewhere where PC or Apple has been mandated, but everwhere I've worked has a supply contract with a particular desktop PC brand.

In general no simply because the diversity of tasks implies a diversity of solutions: some specialized softwares might run on one but not another platform.
The institution may require some security software or an approved equivalent for some parts of the administrative system (say some specific VPN to access private information), support some software but not others, etc, and thus incentivize the use or one rather than other platforms, but beyond that it is usually managed at a lower level.  Members of a research group might be required to have identical platforms so that data is properly transferred and stored when accessed, but rarely much above that level.
So yes your advisor may ban certain platforms, but it’s usually not a university-wide decision.
(I know of one case where a particular shop was barred by the university - no reimbursement for anything bought there - but this is truly exceptional.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to find an internship place in a different city than my university is?
Long story short: I moved to Germany to do a Msc in molecular biology. Since corona, all my lectures and exams are online. Because of financial reasons, I decided to move to a different city (Berlin). But I have 2 internships to complete.... one is for about 5 weeks and the other is for 10 weeks (for my thesis). They should be at the same place.
But I don't have connections here. I tried to cold-email professors, but some of them don't answer, another ones simply don't have time because of corona. I tried to get some advice from my home university, but ofc they can't help me (apart from advising cold emailing :D )
How could I approach research groups? I am kinda lost in this situation. My last option is to move back to my home university, only for the internship, but it would be very costly and I don't want to do that.

How far is your home university (in case you don't want to specify)? Do they have connections to research institutes, organizations, etc.? You could try to find profs at your home uni who know you and know someone around Berlin.  And finally, why would you move to Berlin for financial reasons? There's far cheaper places.

Other than that: Try to make your emails cold-emailing people look more approachable than your post. (Sorry if this sounds rude, but I think this is good advice. This is quite a wall of text.)

How much time do you have before you would need to begin the internships? (and are the internships purely academic?) That might be important to determine if you should try and get known by people at universities in Berlin before cold-emailing. Furthermore do you have anyone who you've worked with before that might be able to vouch for you and your abilities?

@user151413   hi! I moved to Berlin, because one of my relatives live here, so I don't have to pay for the accomodation. So because of this, it is cheaper for me. My home university is approximately 4-4,5 hours from Berlin. Train is quite costly, btw.
I have tried to ask professors about it. But it is not easy- I don't know any of them in person.

@NAMcMahon  I have about 4 months to start an internship. An academic internship is easier to get accepted in my home university, than one in the industry. I think it is a good idea to get to know people at universities in Berlin, but still, how?
Btw, I have people that could reference my previous work, yes.

Why don't you do your internships at your university and rent a small apartment for those 5+10 weeks (with the current situation, Airbnb etc. should be easily available)? Given you don't pay rent now, this is likely still significantly cheaper than having lived in the place of your university for the whole time.

@user151413 That is an option. But actually, that also costs money and all in all it would be much more confortable to find a place here. (Also, I want to go to phd in Berlin, so it would be a good starting point to find a group because of that. I will keep trying to get an internship place before the end of February, and if I don't succeed then I will move back for a short time.

But didn't you plan to do all of your studies in the other city, which would have cost even more money? So you're still better off.  If you want to save that money, you'll work hard to find someone to host you.  Keep contacting people, and do it in a way which catches their attention (brief and addressee-specific).

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


text:
Are there instances of papers the first parts of whose colon-wise titles are questions?
pre-colon-part: post-colon-part is a format which is often used in titles of papers. In all of the instances I have seen, the first part is an informative phrase, a (fictitious) example of which may be

Optimal consensus control of drone swarms: a game-theoretic approach.

But, I am wondering whether there are instances of papers# first parts of whose colon-wise titles are questions; as another fake example, something like:

Constructive or destructive?: Implications on the effectiveness of my
vaccine on the mutated coronavirus

I just tried to look up potential occurrences of the pattern pre-colon-part?: post-colon-part in Google Scholar by searching "?:". However, my query yields nothing. Has anyone already encountered such instances in the scientific literature?
# I am preferably interested in the potential instances which are composed by English native speakers, and/or published in prestigious journals.

FYI, "effectiveness" doesn't seem like an appropriate word to match with "constructive or destructive". To me, something like "outcome" or "patient outcome" fits better.

There are plenty of articles that have a title in the format "Question? Answer/Suggestion", however, without colon.
I'm pretty sure that you cannot have a colon following a question mark, given a question mark indicates the end of a sentence (same as full stop and exclamation mark).
See also this question on english.se: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/sentences-ending-with-both-a-colon-and-a-question-mark

Would you mind citing an instance of those "[Question?] [Answer/Suggestion]" examples?

for sake of laziness from a single elsevier journal
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192031171X
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920310703
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920311721

I agree with Mark that it's bad style to end a phrase with ?: (assuming it isn't the ternary operator!), but that doesn't mean people haven't published papers with such titles. It does seem rare, but one example that seems to meet your criteria is

Richard A. J. Woolley, Karina H. G. Schulte, Li Wang, Philip J. Moriarty, Bruce C. C. Cowie, Hisanori Shinohara, Mito Kanai, and T. John S. Dennis, Does an Encapsulated Atom ‘feel' the Effects of Adsorption?: X-ray Standing Wave Spectroscopy of Ce@C82 on Ag(111) (link), published in Nano Letters.

By the way, I found it by searching for ?: in regular Google, which seems to handle punctuation differently than Google Scholar.

At KDD, arguably the top data mining conference, a recent high-impact paper used this format. The published paper can be found here:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2939672.2939778
The publicly accessible arXiv preprint can be found here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04938

You don't need the question mark; it is implicit in "Constructive or destructive:"

This does not really answer the titular question, but it would be acceptable if you could expand your answer possibly citing some grammar reference.


text:
Uploading of projects and theses
I’m an undergraduate currently working on a project with my supervisor. As far as I know, my supervisor is generally reluctant to publish (that includes the university database). I suspect this will also be the case for the project I’m working on. Is it legal if I upload the final version on say ResearchGate? I want to communicate with others about what I have done and since it is likely that my Bachelor’s thesis will be done under said supervisor, I would like to know what options I have. I can only think of describing the project/thesis in detail as an alternative if I want to list said project/thesis.

Why is he reluctant to publish? Does he have very high standards?

I don’t really know, just his personal preference I guess. He’s on the teaching track so he probably doesn’t need to publish, if at all.

It's unwise to go against the lecturer, but if it's good work, perhaps you can convince him?

He’s on the teaching track --- My experience is that those primarily involved in teaching like to display their student projects as motivation/reward for students, guides for future students doing projects, and "advertisement" for the teacher's teaching/scholarship activities. In fact, I was teaching (among other things) a differential equations course each year in the late 1990s and there was a teacher who had student projects on the internet that I had my students look at, and interestingly enough those projects are still online!

None of this would be illegal, at all likelyhood (but I am not a laywer).
The more important question is whether it is ethical or not.
With regard to theses (i.e., bachelor, master thesis, also PhD thesis), I don't see any issue in posting the thesis somewhere public. (Indeed, PhD thesis usually must be published.) After all, your thesis is your work (certainly this is the formal point of view), and it is up to you what you do with your work.
On the other hand, if you have a supervisor who wants to publish results from the thesis as part of a journal article, it might be better not not publish the thesis before that, such as to protect your ideas until the paper is out. However, this is more about being smart than about being ethical. Also, as far as I see there is no such issue involved here.
Note that the situation is different for results which are not part of the thesis, and which is not solely your work: In that case, you cannot publish them without consent of your coauthors. (Again, this is not about being illegal, but about research and publication ethics.)
Finally, even if it is fine to post your thesis, a bachelor thesis in practice often does involve contributions from the supervisor, so it is probably smart to ask them for permission. As has been pointed out, they might well be happy to showcase good students.  And last, since your supervisor does not seem to care much about publishing, they should not mind those ideas being publicly available (unlike when they would like to use towards for a publication).

An exception is if the advisor is a proper co-author of the work or is (or needs to be) otherwise mentioned in such a way that requires his permission to use his name.

@Buffy I am talking primarily of theses here - this is what the question seems mostly about. On a formal level, I don't think the advisor can be a co-author of the thesis in any way, even though there might be regional differences.  (In practice, this is of course different, see the last paragraph.)  So I don't think there would be a formal issue with posting the thesis, and it is (by construction) your work.

Sorry, but pretty common in some fields.

@Buffy ?? ________


text:
I accidentally submitted my research article to the wrong platform -- how do I let my advisors know?
I’m an MSc student in Computer Science in the last month of my program.  A few months ago, my advisors and I completed an article that I then submitted to a conference. The notifications of acceptance were supposed to come out in early December, so we were a bit perplexed when we had yet to  receive them even in mid-December. We thought this may be due to logistical problems related to the pandemic, so we weren’t too irritated.
I recently sent the organizers a polite email that we had not received a decision notification, and I was shocked to receive the reply that stated that they had no record of my submission. I replied quickly with my submission number and the (automated) notification of receipt I had obtained from their submission system. It’s been two days and I have not received a reply to this email.
Upon scrolling through the webpage for this conference, I realize they had two ways to different links for submitting an article. I selected the one that apparently goes to some submission platform that they do not even monitor, and had not checked that the other link was to a different platform.
While it’s upsetting that our submission will not even be reviewed let alone accepted, I’m even more dismayed by the thought of how my advisors will take this bad news. We worked on this article for some time and underwent a rather intense crunch to get it completed before the deadline. They’re going to write me reference letters for a PhD program application this month, and I’m very worried that this submission mistake will reflect badly in those letters. My question is: should I break the bad news to them now? Should I wait until I finish my program here (in 3 weeks)?

Tell them ASAP, but more importantly, figure out where you submitted your work, i.e. where was this other submission system going to.. /dev/null?

It isn't exactly clear whether it was your mistake or theirs. Should they have been monitoring the other site?

This sounds like an enormous error made by the conference organisers, not you!

"they had two ways to different links for submitting an article. I selected the one that apparently goes to some submission platform that they do not even monitor,"
That's crazy.
However, let's assume they had put a big disclaimer "do not use submission platform 1, use only platform 2" you did not do anything wrong, THEY still did something wrong.
Tell immediately your advisor and attach the automated notification you received.
There may be ways to include your contributions in the conference.

What kindergarten is this? Wait two more days, and it will become actually embarassing when you tell him. Or really embarassing when he finds out by himself.

Take screenshots (or even better: a screencast) of the conference webpage and the two links NOW. If, as you imply, one link might be there by accident, there is a good chance that they fix/remove it. For your own sake, you should be able to prove your version of the story.

@mrks: https://archive.is

If your advisors know of the problem, they can help fix it. For example, perhaps they might suggest submitting the article to a different conference. Even if the problem is not fixable, they can still help mitigate it, e.g. by mentioning in any reference letters that you have written a marvelous piece of work that wasn't published because of some confusion with the conference submission platform.
You gain nothing by hiding the information, so do not hide it.
One more thing: it is quite possible that you might not have a problem in the first place. After all, if the organizers really had two submission links, one of which they did not check but still sent out submission numbers & receipt notifications, then it's not surprising that some papers are going to be misfiled. They could very well be kicking themselves over the error and would do their best to make up for it. Don't panic before you get a response from them.

It can even get acceptance! Plus 1.


text:
Am I burning bridges if I am applying for an internship which I am likely to turn down even if I am accepted?
There is an internship opportunity at a prestigous institution, which I consider applying for. I do not yet have a job offer for the considered time period. I need a job/internship for financial stability. I am also applying to apply for internships in a different country, where I prefer to spend my time. These are less prestigious institutions, and I think I am more likely to get employment. However, I am not sure.
I want to make sure that I get employment, so I would like to apply for the prestigious institution as well. If I get accepted to both places (ie to the prestigious institution, where I don't want to be in general but I will cope if I have no other job, and to one of the less prestigious institutions, in the country where I prefer to be), is it burning bridges if I turn down the offer of the prestigious institution?

It's not uncommon for a company to ask if you have applied for any other jobs. Just be honest and say yes, this might even make them want you more.

I've had quite a few occasions where I met with companies when there was mutual interest, even though I wasn't available and they didn't have exactly an opening at that time. If there is a reason to believe you will work with them in the future, many people might be open to chat with you about their company plans for the mid term future, etc and you can disclose when you think you may be available, etc and discuss possible future collaborations. When I was recruiting I also did the same with some people. It's keeping up with people / companies of interest.

Considering "prestigious institution" it is fairly likely they get tons of applications and you are extremely unlikely to be even remembered (unless you are far above other candidates).

I was in the exact same situation as you. Decided  to apply to “prestigious institution” even though I wanted to live elsewhere. Got and offer from “prestigious institution”. The offer is too good to reject. I’m moving to “prestigious institution” a less attractive country.

If not actually burning, you're clearly scorching bridges.
Why would you want to apply for anything you were likely to turn down?

Generally, you should not apply for a position you have no intention of accepting. I find it is unethical to do so; others may see it as merely impolite or even not a problem at all.
That doesn't seem to be the case here - you're applying and would take the offer if it's given to you and you don't have another better choice (better means better for you, not "more prestigious institution"), but might choose another offer if it's presented to you.
There's nothing ethically wrong with this action. Is it possible someone would take your rejection of an offer as a snub and react negatively to your applications in the future? Sure, there are people all over who make judgments on people for reasons they should not. However, that wouldn't be you burning a bridge, it would be someone else acting vindictively towards you. More likely no one will even remember if you apply again in the future.
Adding from Noah Snyder's comment, when you do get an offer you want to take, you should withdraw from other applications and decline other offers as soon as you have confirmed acceptance of the offer you prefer. It is rude to delay or remain in consideration for positions you will not take.

@NoahSnyder: Just make sure you got a binding offer, preferably with the contract already signed.

Yes! When you're looking for a job you should be applying to more than one place at a time.

Indeed; this is completely normal. Applying to only one job would be rare.

No
Offers are only offers, not contracts. They can be declined, and are declined all the time (for example, in 2018, 18% of undergraduates accepted by Harvard declined). Whoever is managing the internship will have a wait list, and if you decline, they will call someone else from the wait list and forget about you.
Naturally the more people are accepted in the internship the less likely someone is to remember you, but even if you're the only person, you should be OK especially if you decline courteously and promptly.

And decline in a timely fashion. And do not accept, get an offer elsewhere several months later, and then decline. Such are the risks of applying to more than one place...

I think it pretty unlikely that such a decision would follow you into the future. Few would know about it unless you tell them (other than at that one place).
People understand applicants applying to several things at once, given the uncertainty of the process.
But you would do well to keep an open mind until you need to make some definite choice.

I agree with the other answers that you are not burning bridges with the institution. However, you may -- in some circumstances -- be burning bridges with individuals.
If an internship (or fellowship) is one of several offered by a group or department, or is just based on accomplishment not on fit with specific work requirements, there should be no problem. Your slot will just go to whoever is next on the waiting list.
However, if you specifically were selected since (formally or informally) someone spoke up to express enthusiasm to supervise you or otherwise have you work on their specific project, they may be now emotionally invested in you coming (and feel a bit rejected if you turn it down), and/or may have prioritized you over others in a way they cannot roll back. It shouldn't be that way, but selection meetings can become contentious with people backing their preferred candidates and emphasizing their strengths over others.
People do reject offers quite frequently and -- if you do so in a timely and responsible manner -- this will not make you enemies. But you do need to consider the possibility that specific people who may have lobbied on your behalf may feel less enthusiastic to invest more personal energy on your behalf next time you pop up on their radar screen in whatever other context.
Therefore: go ahead and do what you have to do, but be sensitive to who may be individuals who may (appropriately or not) feel a bit slighted if you do take another opportunity. If there are such individuals, it would likely be helpful if you reach out to them afterwards, explaining how you had to prioritize such and such, and reiterating how much you hope to work with them in the future (or somesuch, whatever feels natural). A bit of empathy and explanation goes a long way!

I think it is common to apply for multiple internships. Just be honest if asked where else you've applied. If offered an internship then you need to make a decision in a reasonable amount of time and then decline any outstanding internships after you have accepted an offer. What will burn bridges is to keep stringing an offer along while waiting for a "better offer" or all the other offers.


text:
How to apply Sigconf proceedings template to MS Word paper
I am looking to apply Sigconf proceedings template to a research paper.
As the conference instructs templates are available from the ACM website.
I've downloaded the Interim layout.docx file but the file instructions are not clear to me and I can't figure out how to format the document accordingly. Any thoughts?

The idea of that word file is that it already contains the correct layout for an article. You only need to change the text and overwrite what is in the word file, except for the formatting. Whenever you add new section headings and the like, make sure to copy the style from the previous section headings. The layout file already contains examples for many elements of a manuscript, such as figures, equations, and the like. Again, if you want to use equations, figures, and so on, you just copy them from the layout example file to your file and just change the content, without changing the style.
When you are done with your article, you perform the final steps mentioned in the "abstract" of the template, which appears to contain concrete instructions for this step.
Note that in many of the better conferences, rejection of papers positively correlates with the paper being written in Word. So many authors would use LaTeX right from the start to not give the first impression that the paper is a rejection candidate (in addition to other reasons for using LaTeX). Of course, reviewers should not care about this, but there may be a subconscious bias against your contribution because of the correlation.


text:
Reference recent paper to join group?
I'm in my second year at uni.
There's a professor whose group I want to get into. My question relates to what's appropriate to send in a "hey can I join" email.
For example, this man quite recently (in the last 7 months) published a paper relating surveying different search algorithm techniques to find ideal locations in a molecular lattice w/ xray diffraction (this is a made-up research topic for privacy haha).
I really like this approach and wanted to use similar techniques in my graduate studies. However, he's so far only published this paper based on it. Should I not mention my specific interest in my email?
Also in general, there are a few people at my school who explore a similar "scale" of physics as this man. I'm unsure about how much detail I'm meant to put in my emails. Are professors looking for someone who's completely in-tune to their specific subfield of the subfield, or do they expect "someone who wants to work with physics on this scale and thinks your papers are cool"? Obviously the former is preferred, but I'm wondering if the latter is the usual.
Thank you for reading.

Rather than explaining in the email why you would want to join this particular lab over any other lab, I would simply write an email that says something like

Dear Professor X, I'm in my second year at uni and I am considering
which group to join. I read your recent paper ABC and would love to
learn more about the work you and your group does. Do you maybe have
45min in the next week where we could chat about this in person?
Best, anon.jpg

EDIT: Anonymous Physicist just rightly pointed out that this is for an undergraduate study and not searching for a PhD lab as I had mistakenly assumed. I would still ask for a large enough amount of the profs time though to make the meeting worth while. In my eyes there is no point to meet for such a short time that another meeting would be required. So maybe ask for 30 minutes. If the prof won't find 30 min time, then I think this means this prof is too busy for undergrads in the lab.

It might be smarter to ask for 5 minutes.  A lot of faculty are really pressed for time.

I guess experiences may differ. But every faculty member who I met with to potentially join their lab took a whole hour of time. And honestly, if a faculty member won't take 45 minutes to talk to a prospective 3-5 year hire, then they probably wouldn't be a suitable PhD advisor.

I think the asker is looking for undergraduate research experience, not a 3-5 year job/PhD.  But the question is unclear.

I have reading comprehension issues. I was thrown off by the mention of 'my graduate studies', but I see the tag now. I would still aim much higher than 5 minutes though--that seems too short to even exchange pleasantries.

I'll likely not request a specific amount of time, if I'm being frank, but try to make some sort of comment like "if you have some spare time" or something. I am looking for undergrad research exp, but I guess that's like 3 years at this point. Thank you for the advice, Mario and AP.

First, be careful. Seeing a paper and writing "Dear Prof. X, I saw your recent paper "Title" and I found this extremely exciting, this is exactly what I want to do." can backfire: Maybe this is not what the professor is interested in, but it is just a side project, mainly driven by some other people, to which he made contributions.  This might come off as you not having looked into what he/she is really interested in.
Second, you don't have to come across as overly eager, and don't try to say things just to please the professor.  Most professors are reasonable and critical people, and they will not be pleased just because you try very hard to please them. What they will want to see and hear is why you contacted them, why overall you find their topic interesting and what excites you for that topic (not in detail, but, say, as compared to a completely different topic within the same field, say, experimental opics vs. theoretical high-energy physics).  Being too unspecific ("I find everything interesting") is just as bad as being overly specific ("Only your very topic is what I want to work on"), but having some ideas of what interests you have, and where your strenths are, is certainly a good thing.


text:
Pros and cons of living in the same building as faculty members, during one's PhD
What are the pros and cons of living in the same shared apartment building that house faculty members?
Some pros:

It's an opportunity to network with faculty and spend quality time together, outside of coursework and research.  BBQs, coffee, dinners.

We get to know each other more personally, e.g. know each other's families.

I can't think of any cons.

Privacy concerns and "what if things turn sour" scenarios.. Of course both are much more problematic in the roommate case.

It's an opportunity to network with faculty and spend quality time together: You get that all day long

My PhD would have been a hell. As I was in the lab/office about 75% of the time, at least I had some freedom to get drunk* or do others stupid things and try with some girls. And still, my building was a university related one, but not that much to have colleagues or seniors really around me. But it depends on your character and especially if you are settled with a family. *in addition to the group occurrences :))

@Alchimista: I would hope that advisoes do not care about you getting drunk (or drink with you?!) and about you trying with girls?! But I understand your point.

One con could be that you life in a pure academic world, without connection to "academically lower people". This often leads (I have some collegues who grew up in academic families) to ivory tower thinking and political thoughts in which they cannot understand the "little man". Of course, this is not entirely related to living - it depends on your actions and who you talk with as well.

"It's an opportunity to network with faculty and spend quality time together,"
"outside of coursework and research. BBQs, coffee, dinners."
What do you mean with quality time? spending your private time with the same people you can meet at ""coursework and research. BBQs, coffee, dinners."?
If this is your goal, you do NOT need to live in the same building, not even in the same district!

Even gregarious people need privacy. That's how they stay friendly and can recharge. Even pets or animals in zoos get a private zone where they can retreat to out of the prying eyes of the public. Enjoy your interaction with faculty when they are out and about and prepared to interact, but do respect their retreat area and private lives.

Is this even an option at your university? The faculty housing I'm familiar with is more of an apartment (full apartment with kitchen) or townhouse rental situation. Even if a graduate student rented the unit next door, there wouldn't necessarily be much social interaction. And not guaranteed to be next door to your faulty, either, but could be someone from an entirely different department.

I've lived in an apartment building for 30 years, but I hardly ever socialize with most of my neighbors. I don't view apartment buildings as social organizations, so why would living in the same building (especially if it's a large building) mean you're living "with" them. However, rooming with them would be a big difference.

The title is really misleading.  At least in the US, it would (depending on context) be interpreted as either having a sexual relationship, or perhaps renting a room from, or sharing a house with, a faculty member.  Just in the same apartment building?  Back in the days when I lived in apartments, I knew only a few of the people in neighboring apartments, and didn't socialize with them.

@Massimo: How come you edited this to mean "shared"?  That's quite a big difference. I also don't know many faculty members who live in shared apartments. I think this changes the meaning of the question quite significantly.

@Inkblot Since the account of the author is deleted, the other moderators and I decided that it would have been better to narrow the question down to be more realistic and limit the speculation.

@Massimo: But now it's not clear to me if "shared apartment building" is an apartment sharing building, or simply a building that has several apartment (also known as "apartment building"). Not everyone here is in the US and is familiar with the vernacular.

@Inkblot If you have better phrasing in mind, please suggest it. Note also that this question is probably quite oriented to the US.

if you can't think of any cons, then it is probably a bad idea

You're assuming they're going to want to interact with you at all. You'd be surprised that this isn't the case quite often. If anyone asked me this personally I'd tell them to avoid it unless the price is really good.

Here is a con.
You might not be as nice or as friendly as you might think. Your presence might be appreciated on occasion, and in smaller doses, but not in large and inescapable doses like being a neighbour.
Maybe you are nice, but maybe you're not. We have no way of knowing. But it's easy to dislike one's neighbors. And if you're looking at this as a networking tool, that means that you're going to look for opportunities to interact more with the faculty. And if at some point you step over a line, or annoy someone in the wrong way (could also be the spouse  or the friends of these faculty members), then you become a nuisance. And you might not even be aware that they can hear your TV or your computer playing, and they might not even tell you that, just like I never told my previous neighbors how we heard them fight every night at 1am. Or god forbid, you forgot to mute your recent adult entertainment and their 6 years old child heard it through the paper-thin walls.
It can be perfectly fine if you only interact with these people at work related events, they don't have to bring their spouses and friends there. But you're now encroaching on their private living space. There's no escape from that.

I think it depends on the country, culture, university and also the invidiuals that are involved. I had some professor friend in Vietnam who would go out drinking to the bar with his graduate students. But for me as a professor, I personally prefer to draw a line between my university life and my personal life. I interact with students mainly at university but do not interact with them in my life outside university besides saying "hello" if I encounter them on the street.  Being close to students in daily life might be ok or might be seen as inappropriate or a conflict of interest in some countries or universities... I think it need to be evaluated whithin your context (country, university etc.).

I can't think of any cons.

Life is more than just work. Many people want to call it a day and be done with work related stuff. They might not want to talk about work subjects in the evening or on weekends. Sometimes the mind needs some time off a certain topic to be ready to crack problems on Monday morning.
Another issue is that one might not want to spend the free time with work people for personal reasons. Maybe those people simply are not were friendly, maybe those people have (political) opinions you do not want to hear all the time. Maybe some people do not want to socialize with people they are supposed to keep a professional distance?
Naturally at university the lines between private and university life are a bit blurry. Most first-semesters have just moved to a new city and do not know anybody yet. Therefore many will have friends that study the same or work PhD at the same department. But always keep in mind that this does not apply for everybody and not everyone wants to blurr this line

Living in the same apartment building doesn't mean you have to socialize with them. I've been living in an apartment building for 30 years, and I rarely socialize with any of my neighbors (but I don't socialize much at all). You might pass them in the hallways, laundry room, etc., but maybe not often if it's a large building.

Yes but in the comments he mentioned being potential room mates. This will inevitable cause some degree of socializing. There is of course a difference in living in the same building but 3 floors apart. However, this would also reduce the perceived advantages

Yes, the comment mentions both possibilities. It would be best if he narrowed the question, as someone else suggested.

Although it's hard to imagine how you would become a roommate without the faculty member being OK with the increased socializing.

"Life is more than just work." -> Citation needed. (Take with a bit of humour please.)

@DetlevCM: See this link, said by this person.

When I was a graduate student, working toward my Ph.D., I wouldn't have wanted such proximity, or assumed that this would have resulted in me being a part of the social circle of any of the professors that I worked with, despite the fact that I got along well with them. It's an uneven footing, so to speak, and some of the joys (and trials) in that time of my life were better shared with friends in similar places (or, if professors, not with those in my department).  This was true even though one or two of my professors occasionally went to the bar with some Ph.D. students (and I was a part of this).  Universities are often wary of or even prohibit professors from fraternizing (being too close) with their students because a) professors have more power than students, which can set up the potential for exploitation, sexual or otherwise; and b) conversely, it can create a situation where a manipulative student can pressure or even blackmail a professor if something inappropriate has occurred.  In addition, it can be awkward.  The professor may genuinely like the student, but not necessarily want to bring them into their "friend" circle (or vice versa). It's partly a matter of having appropriate boundaries that both parties are sensitive to. Later, I taught at this same university (a few years post-Ph.D.), and discovered some other issues.  A faculty member in another area (same department) offered to give me a lift home following a department-wide professional and social event; he became very sexually aggressive once we reached my place, and his (much) greater power was a possible threat to my continued employment. A student of mine who was my age pursued me romantically, and subtly pursued trying to get a better grade than he deserved. Mixing students and faculty living quarters isn't necessarily a good idea! Living in the same apartment building during the Ph.D. years makes it all too easy to make assumptions that may not be true, and to be emotionally vulnerable, particularly if you're the student, or to feel that your private life has been encroached upon if you're the professor.  After I was no longer teaching there, I used to occasionally visit the area where the two professors I was closest to had moved.  At that point, I felt free to call them, and we would see each other socially.  This was not awkward, and was in many ways an ideal (and respectful) way to be a part of each other's lives.

There are plenty of cons.
And it all depends on the building and where in the building everyone is, and how often you all would see each other.
You should  not worry about the social circle because of the age differences.
But one big con is they might try to use you as their butler  baby,sitter, or errand boy; and you would not dare say no to them as they, might retaliate.
Probably not but you would not take that risk and end up doing too many other tasks.
Your advisor will have you doing plenty of his personal tasks anyway so you do not need other people also doing it.


text:
contacting post-doc in a lab to join his research instead of his mentor
This question is unrelated to the previous one I asked earlier this week.
There's a post-doc in a lab at my school who exactly fits my research interests-- as in, he is working in the exact subfield of the subfield I like, and he is using the exact techniques I would like to gain experience in.
Is it appropriate to just contact him instead of the professor who manages his group? (I guess, instead of contacting his mentor)
I know there's a question of funding, but frankly for several reasons I'm willing to not be paid, at least for the first few months (and I'll mention this in my email to him).
edit: I know there's some instability with postdocs in someone else's lab (they might just yeet to another lab), but if I get a year with him, I would still love the opportunity.
edit: I'm second-year

Will you need a letter of reference?

@CaptainEmacs maybe in 2-3 years. Is this an issue? thanks for bringing up this point

Yes, it's an issue. A postdoc's reference will always be weaker than a profs, not because of content, but because of establishment. The postdoc is not well known, the prof is. On the other hand, if you don't care, and are happy to work there for a year, go for it. You are a person interested in research rather than career-grabbing; in the end it's the quality and quantity of your publications that count. Be aware that the power dynamic may not permit the postdoc to make such a decision, though.

"they might just yeet to another lab" As a friendly heads up, it's probably best to use more professional language than this when actually contacting the postdoc or professor.

Even if you're working with a postdoc you would still be joining their mentor's research group.

You should specify your current role and what your future position would be in the group, e.g. UG research volunteer, PhD student, postdoc.

@CaptainEmacs understood, thanks for bringing this up.

Massimo, U.S. astronat haha will do, user2705196 I'm a sophomore UG

For this short answer, I'm using information from an earlier question that you asked here; namely, that you are a 2nd year undergraduate student. I'm not familiar with how Asian universities operate, but the below would by and large apply to both Europe and the U.S.
If there is any researcher at your university you are interested in working with (probably as an undergraduate researcher), then just talk to them. If you hit it off both personally and academically, then the postdoc (in the case at hand) will discuss with their PI (professor and research supervisor) if they can take you in. The PI will then decide if yes; sometimes after first talking to you as well.


text:
How to make this attribution without offending anyone or looking unscholarly?
In my field, Linguistics, we often use sentences from published works, or attested examples of sentences we have read or heard, as evidence of what kinds of things are possible or grammatical in a language. These are often felt to be more convincing than examples of sentences derived from our own introspection.
Suppose one wishes to re-use and refer to examples from a paper (paper A), which were themselves cited from a previous paper (paper B). If the examples were used to illustrate related points and discussions in the two papers, the scholarly thing to do would be to go and investigate the original paper and look at the examples in context there. One would then likely cite the original paper.
What should one do, however, if some of the examples in paper A do not actually appear in the published version of paper B? Let's say, for example, that paper B was a conference paper and that one might assume that the examples appeared in the original presentation but did not make it to the published paper in the conference proceedings?
In my case, the article I am writing is a response to paper A. If I merely cite the examples as from B cited in paper A, I might look as if I couldn't be bothered to go and look at paper B myself. This, I suppose, might reflect badly on the perceived scholarliness of the work. I cannot honestly cite the examples as being from paper B, as they do not appear in the published version. If I say the examples are cited from B by the authors of A, but that they don't appear in the published version of B, I might look as if I'm publicly criticising A, and also as if I'm a pedant.
What is the best thing to do in terms of attribution here?

In case it counts for anything, I'm a lowly PhD student.

What does your advisor say?  I would not expect the answer to this question to be universal across fields.

@AlexanderWoo They fumbled with it too. Made a provisional suggestion and then took it back. The paper doesn't relate directly to my PhD, and is outside of my PhD supervisor's immediate interests/expertise. Not sure if I'm going to press them about it again. I was lucky to get lots of other helpful feedback from them given the current circumstances!

Just cite both.

@AnonymousPhysicist Thanks. There wouldn't be an issue that I had never actually seen the examples in paper B?

You have cited a source for the sentence (A) and another relevant document (B).  What is the problem?

@AnonymousPhysicist Well, just that if anyone decided to go to B to look for the example, they wouldn't find it there.

You cited both, so they would look in both and find it in A.

Having two citations isn't uncommon [A,B]. Or first published in [B] with applications presented in [A]. It should be clear who published first from the bibliography of A and B

@AnonymousPhysicist: The question doesn't seem to be just what to put in a citation, but what to write in the commentary around the citation that might be necessary in this case.  Yes, a (deliberately) uninformative citation is one possible solution, but that is one choice among many.

Any feedback on the downvote? I can't improve my question(s) without any!

I have thought about this question more, and thought about one similar case I dealt with recently.  Even in my own field, I would not feel comfortable answering this question without knowing the reputations of A and B and their professional relationship (with each other).

@AlexanderWoo The authors of A are highly regarded, some very, very highly indeed. The author of B is highly regarded and has worked with and co-published with a very highly regarded co-author of A (and possibly some of the others, I'm not sure). A is published in a very highly regarded journal.

Sorry - I mean something like the reputations for their personal conduct within the professional sphere - like whether they are nice people or not to their colleagues, and whether A and B are on good terms with each other.  I think this questions can only be answered by someone who has personally interacted in a professional context with both A and B.

My inclination would be to say exactly (but succinctly) what's going on, perhaps a citation like "[A] (cited from [B] but not found in the published version of [B])".


text:
May I ask professors to reschedule two back to back night classes from 4:30PM to 9:00PM?
As a graduate school student, I have two professors teaching two separate classes that go from 4:30PM to 5:50pm and 6:00pm to 9:00PM. This happens every one day of the week.
I'm not sure whether I can handle concentrating for 5 hours and I have the option to not take a class but it would delay graduating by a semester.
Do I negotiate with the professor to reschedule or do they have the power to deny it?

Do a lot of people in your dept have the same problem?

You can ask, but I don't see success. You aren't the only student.

I think a lot of students enrolled in evening-only programs have similar schedule issues. Some MS programs are like that so that working people can earn a degree.

I just decided to take classes I’m interested in and this semester is a unique combination of evening classes

They definitely "have the power to deny it." But it never hurts to ask (especially if there are more students in your shoes, as @Azor indicates).

Yes, certainly ask (not "negotiate"). Especially for small graduate classes, it might well be possible to change the time. If not, then nothing lost.

Usually there is a very compelling reason for such strange hours, so I would not be hopeful of a rescheduling. It's probably way too late to do anything about it anyway. Ideally the schedules should be announced well in advance, but many administrators are reluctant to publish "tentative schedules". Teachers (and the poor junior colleague who got the short straw and is in charge of compiling the schedule for the department) would be open to that, but I am not holding my breath even though getting student feedback on tentative schedules would be optimal.

@GregMartin's point is a good one.  I have managed to completely reschedule classes with something like 5–6 students in them in the past.  For classes much larger than that, though, there's rarely another time when everyone is available.

This happens every one day of the week - Do you mean "happens once each week", or 5 or 7 times each week?

@ Azor Ahai -him-: But for all we know, those hours might have been requested by other students or the instructor, for instance to keep them from having to make extra trips to campus.

Don't forget that if you do propose reschedule, please - if possible - come up with the alternative time yourself. That makes the rescheduling easier for everyone involved. For perspective, my department has one place where all schedules on resources availability (room, teacher, special equipment, etc.) can be found, so such thing is usually doable. YMMV, though.

@Kimball I'd be amazed if there were a class that meets for 90 minutes every day, let alone one that meets for 3 hours every day. A single 3-hour meeting per week is pretty typical (the vast majority of my upper-level undergrad classes, being cross-listed with graduate classes, had this schedule.)

Well, you may ask, but don't push too hard. You're way too late, and your reasons are sounding a bit selfish. Honestly, on your shoes, I'd rather ask for a longer break (or maybe starting later?).

Try, but don’t expect the favorable results. Nobody cares for a single student opinion. I teach 4hrs classes from 6-10pm, and nobody complains. My students and I come after full work day on Friday. Just get yourself together and do what you got to do.

Academic timetabling is a notoriously difficult problem. Professors have several classes to teach, students have several classes to attend. There are restrictions related to classroom sizes, specific equipment (e.g. computer labs). Some professors may have individual restrictions, e.g. can only teach on specific days or hours due to other commitments.
Normally, Professors do not decide their own timetables, but submit their preferences to the Timetabling Office, which then generates a timetable for everyone. Students can also try to submit their requests, but usually as a groups (cohorts), not individually. If you are not happy with your timetable, it is definitely worth trying to change it, but bear in mind that it may not be easy.
However, if you class is scheduled up until 9pm, which is significantly beyond the core hours, you actually have a much better chance of having this class rescheduled, particularly if any of other students attending the same late class have caring responsibilities. Your Student Rep / Student Union Rep / Athena Swan Rep (in the UK) might be able to help you with the process.

'Normally, Professors do not decide their own timetables'  One consequence of this is that, for all we know, the professor may already have requested rescheduling of the late-evening class, and signs of a groundswell of student support may be just what s/he needs to get his/her request granted.

OTOH, at least in Europe, professors often do have certainly flexibility in setting the timetable (and now in distance teaching even more than usually). I really can't hurt to ask (but, as everybody says, don't get your hopes up - it seems highly unlikely that a class is scheduled to run into the night for no compelling reason at all, independently of who did the scheduling).

@xLeitix in parts of Europe perhaps. I teach in Europe, and I most definitely do not have flexibility in setting the timetable.

"beyond the core hours" really depends on the country. My university schedules tutorials up to 8:30pm on every day but weekends.

Creating timetables is NP complete - meaning it's a very hard problem and nigh impossible to fully automate, at least if you want optimal solution.

@JanDorniak Why would an administrator dealing with a complex task aim for the optimal solution? From my experience, they normally look for a solution, which meets the KPI and/or does not have obvious points which will be criticised by administrator's line manager. Beyond that - who cares? (normally)

@DmitrySavostyanov I just wanted to point out that timetables are mathematically proven to be hard to make ;)

@JanDorniak Sure, but the world consists mostly of non-mathematicians.

On day one of an 8:30 AM physics class (for physics majors, that's important later...) my prof. said "I'm teaching this class this year because the normal professor is on sabbatical. I'm NOT doing it at 8:30. I already checked, there are no required physics or math classes at 10:30, so I'm moving it to then. I'll have to ask the department chair for permission. Oh, wait. That's me. Permission granted!"

Yes, you can ask.  However, it is likely that professors cannot change the schedule.  It is also quite possible that it is too late for anyone to change the schedule.  It depends on individual circumstances.
It would be normal for a three hour class to contain a rest break.  This may solve your problem.

4:30 pm is an odd time for an evening class to start; chances are that it was selected either specifically to fit into the professor's schedule, or specifically to allow motivated students to attend both the 4:30 class and a 6 pm class.
(For example, some students may find it far more convenient to travel to campus one day a week for a 6 hour session than to travel on two different days.)
In addition to asking if the classes can be rescheduled for your convenience, you might also ask if there other classes you can take towards your degree.

While I think the first session started at 8, not 9 as appears to be the case for OPs school, a significant minority of my undergrad classes were 80 (75?) minutes twice/week.  Typically these were Tuesday/Thursday classes that were small enough not to need a weekly breakout session with a TA.  I don't think all departments used them, but I generally had at least 1 of these a semester.

I had quite a few 4:30-to-6 classes that met twice a week. I think the 6-9 slot once a week was more common for classes with a signifiant graduate-student enrollment, but then again this was a school near a large downtown, so getting off work a little early twice a week for 10 weeks to take a class probably wasn't much of an issue.

You can ask, but school room/building scheduling, other students preferences, prof's preference, and other factors will make you look silly and entitled.
If you did not like the schedule you should not have signed up for both of them if they ran back to back.

Asking doesn't make one look silly and entitled, throwing a hissy fit if the answer is no does.  Also, at many schools the schedule isn't set when you sign up for a course, it gets formulated based on the schedules of the faculty, resources, and students who signed up.

authors: Xi'an ні війні


text:
Do you need first authorship to use a publication for your PhD thesis?
I'm a full-time staff assisting research. Not a student.
Jacob asked me to use the knowledge and skill that I learned during my Masters to help him do a meta-analysis for his Project as he has never done one. He told me that he wanted it to be on 'disease name' and 'target population' on 'phenomenon'. That was it. I ran with it - wrote up the protocol, did the search, initial title/abstract screening, looked through the full paper and extracted all data to see what outcomes we could pool. All throughout I shared with Jacob everything I had done through email. Jacob did not like the research question and outcome that I had decided upon because he wanted something more clinically practical - RCTs and intervention studies - except there were no papers and I indicated this to him. I reasoned with him to say that his outcome may not be clinically relevant, but I foresee it being cited many times as something that many people will probably refer to in the future.
I ask Jacob to do help with the screening as well. I send him instructions and he doesn't follow through saying that he's too busy to do this. I suggest asking a student to help, to which he refused to because he wants to do it himself. I tell him that the screening doesn't take much intellectual contribution and that the data analysis and interpretation is the most important aspect - his contribution will not be overshadowed. Time passed and a year goes by with no further progress. I continue to collect papers and contact authors for extra data during this period.
Now Jacob is claiming the meta-analysis to be his right to have first authorship for his PhD thesis. He says that I must hand over all materials to him and that he will be the one to decide on the authorship order. Never once throughout the process had I been told that this would be part of his PhD. I feel that there has been this imbalance of power - I do not know who his PhD supervisor is and they have never been involved in this process. Had there been a third party to oversee this, I feel that this process would have gone a lot smoother. I also know that I have put significant effort, time, intellectual contribution into this meta-analysis and it feels like all that work has been taken away from me.
I do not mind if Jacob uses the meta-analysis for his thesis but I would like to publish it as first author or, at the very least, first co-author with my name first. Can both Jacob and I get what we want or must he really be sole first author to be able to use the meta-analysis for hid PhD thesis?
Thank you!

You should have your supervisors sort this out for you.  Generally speaking, PhD theses only have one author but journal articles can have multiple authors.  Often it is fine to use part, and sometimes all, of a multiauthored journal article as part of a PhD thesis, even if the thesis author is not the first author of the article.

"I do not know who his PhD supervisor is and they have never been involved in this process."  This sounds like your real problem.

Yes.. I do not know who Jacob's PhD supervisors are. Project A's supervisor is not Jacob's. If the first comment you said is true, then I think it should be fine for me to lead the publication and provide all the data to Jacob for him to freely use it in whatever aspect he wants for his thesis. Hopefully he will be willing to negotiate.

Please do not vandalize your own post.

RE vandalization: please see here for an explanation, and some alternatives.

Most of the details here are irrelevant to your question. What is accepted in a dissertation is up to the university, the advisor, and any evaluating committee. If they accept only first author work then that is what you need. Some might only accept sole-author work, actually. As such, there is no general answer possible here.

I think there has to be a question here of whether "Jacob" intends to be honest, in the candidate's declaration at the front of his thesis, about the provenance of this meta-analysis.  OP: are there any other witnesses to what's been going on?  For example, have you been keeping your line manager apprised of the extent and nature of your involvement with project B?

BTW, am I correct in inferring that "Ph.D. student" is not Jacob's only role in the university?

Authorship issues within a group should be resolved by supervisors. This is easily found out by a simple web search or by simply asking lab members. It’s probably on your university’s website.
Authorship order can include two lead authors. This can be explicit (ie written in the submission notes) or implicit (by authorship order conventions in your community).
However, from what you describe your coauthor is abusing their position, or just given a lot of authority by the PI. If any of my students threatened a labmate they’d be in trouble. Ultimately the supervisor should decide material access, and more. Indeed, as you say - since two funding agencies are involved the two supervisors (yours and theirs) should be involved if only to agree whose grant the paper goes on.
Finally, this has nothing to do with thesis work. You can definitely include coauthored work in a thesis, with the express permission of your coauthors. I ‘donated’ a nice figure to a coauthor’s thesis and was happy to do it!

A small unrelated note, expecting a PhD student to pay you back for your work since you’re on a different grant is a complete misunderstanding of how grants work, and an over expectation on grad student salary...

I did not expect the PhD student to pay me back. I am a full-time staff and depending on the allocation of money from the grant (public funding), I need to adjust the time I spend working. Example, I cannot work on other projects if my salary is 100% coming from Project A.
The co-authorship sounds like the best compromise. From what Jacob has told me, he says he requires first author for it to be part of his thesis. I did not do my research and did not know that this is not the case. Thank you for informing me.

In that case I think you should clarify the line “ Jacob refuses to give back the money”


text:
Are patents included in literature reviews?
I'm writing a literature review on synthesis and biological activity of some organic compounds, and half the references I found on SciFinder are patents. Are patents typically included in literature reviews of this sort?
Thank you!

If you want to be comprehensive they are. It used to be that innovative stuff that was in patents subsequently got written up in papers, but the legal departments of the companies put a stop to that about 20 yrs ago.

Everything is included in the literature search including patents. It depends on how deep you wish to search,  where you wish to stop and which range of years you would like to focus. Papers, reviews, patents, books, monographs, conference proceedings, handbooks, MS/PhD theses, technical reports, etc., are all part of a formal literature search.  You should not include unreliable sources like internet pages until and unless the author is known to be scientifically reliable. Wikipedia should also be the last resort...it is an excellent beginning for a topic search. A good reference list includes seminal papers (earliest ones) and the latest ones, emphasizing the recent ones.

I don't see how this is an answer to the question (which is also not really on-topic here IMO). Here, only the first two sentences are relevant to the question, but they are about literature search, not literature review, not to mention lack of cited guidelines or best editing practices. A generalization like "everything is included" is not correct. Oftentimes a standalone patent mapping is required alongside the literature review, and sometimes a style guide dictates separate bibliographies based on a source.

Andselisk, Like before, I will not argue about the choice of words. Literature search and literature review mean the same thing to me. It may mean something else to someone else and they are economically free to write a separate answer. If the publishing industry makes a distinction, I am not aware of that. Are you by chance associated with research paper publishing/editing industry, given your specific inclination towards following style guides?

Literature search is a process and literature review is a product, how can they possibly be the same thing?

Both search and review are also verbs and I use them interchangeably for literature (.) and English is not my first English language like you.

Literature search and literature review are nouns. Please don't take words out of context.

Which also makes literature review a process. Anyway, leave this topic for the linguists...the OED people. Our focus should be on helping SE Chemistry become better and better in terms of content rather than criticize each other on irrelevant issues.

"Which also makes literature review a process."—How? It is a written product, usually in a form of article: check Wikipedia. No need for OED people when it comes to a common sense. I don't criticize you, I point out inaccuracies in your answer. Sorry, I have no inclination on continuing this dialogue, there is not much I can add, really.