text:
Co-supervisor comes to the office to help her students, which distracts me
My co-supervisor (2nd supervisor) comes to the office where I work to help her (main) Ph.D. students. The noise distracts my work. I find it unprecedented. Why not help her students in her own private office, instead of coming to the shared office space!?
I am not sure how to resolve this issue. Shall I message her, mention the issue to her students or to a superior academic, or change office?
Like it or not, there is a lot of hierarchy in academia and she has helped me in the past. I don't want to break relationships. In addition, I know I am not the only in the office who has noise issues.
What would be the diplomatic way to have a quiet office space?
Edit & Update:
1) Noise canceling earbudsor headphones are good and I have tried they do help, but to be honest if you want to concetrate to carry a task it's hard to maintain focus with loud volume.
2) I believe I have a common understanding with most of you guys. If there is a small chat in the office is fine but if it's a meeting more than 30 mins they should find a room. In my case, the co-supervisor helped her student for almost the whole day... And as I mentioned in the comment section from what I am aware she has an available office and there are plenty of meeting rooms in the Uni. If it's the computer thing they have laptops...
3) Thank you everyone for your support and suggestions, hope you are getting well with your offices. As mentioned from you, there cannot be a perfect office but at least have some common understanding I guess.

Can you raise the issue with your office mates? Might be better than with the super.

@Buffy I see, like a kind of petition you mean?

No, just a discussion among peers.

Okay, I believe I can. I know me plus other 2 have the issue (they leave the office when too noisy) the rest 3 we haven't discussed (they tolerate I guess), and then her 2 students they, of course, welcome their supervisor help.

In addition, the ones who have the issue reported that the office is noisy to their supervisor(another one) but no measures where taken...

Maybe your supervisor has a shared room too? Or that they are worried about transparency and risk of being seen as inappropriate with their students?

@Poidah Good thought, but the co-supervisor has an office for herself to invite anyone she wants.

Just to add some reasons that it mgiht happen, even if the supervisor has a private office: 1. Perhaps they want to discuss something that is on the student's computer; 2. Perhaps it is a quick, casual question or conversation, where they don't want to add the formality or disruption of "please come to my office". Sometimes this kind of conversation can develop, so that rather than being a two minute conversation it's a twenty minute one; in that case it is reasonable to politely ask them to move it elsewhere.

@Flyto: 3. Perhaps the co-supervisor's office is a place with too many distractions (students / colleagues / boss dropping by to ask questions).  Sometimes it is good to be hard to find.

@NateEldredge being hard to find is one thing, disturbing others work is something else...

@eykanal, You deleted an answer which is the most common solution to this problem.

In general, you shouldn't expect a shared office to be quiet.  This is why people who have shared offices often work in other places much of the time (library, home, cafe, ...)  You can try to see if other people will accommodate you, but it's not required that a shared office be quiet.

@NateEldredge If it's about being hard to find, then be hard to find in a meeting room or tell people who want to interrupt that you're busy and they can come back in half an hour.

Have you considered the simple solution of putting on headphones or earbuds and listening to some nice soothing music?

@pjs Not everybody wants to work to music and "nice soothing music" isn't very good at blocking noise.

@DavidRicherby White noise works just fine then.  So do the foam roller earplugs, which I used to wear for aviation noise and are dirt cheap.

@pjs Your "white noise" is my "loud annoying hiss".

Usually for relatively long discussions we use meeting rooms. It may be more convenient for your supervisor to use a meeting room for this. Perhaps they just haven't thought about this option.

I'm not sure if I would use the word "unprecedented" here - I have definitely had my supervisor come into my office to explain stuff (or just chat), and I have also done the same with my own students. I can't imagine that we are total outliers here.
That said, unless you have a particularly bad relationship to your fellow students and your co-supervisor, is there anything wrong with asking them to discuss in a meeting room (or their office) if these discussion are lengthy and/or happen very frequently? I certainly would not mind taking our discussion elsewhere if other people are bothered.
To directly address your proposals:

shall I message her

Why not just ask her friendly when they are discussing next time if they would mind moving to a meeting room?

mention her students

You can, but talking to both involved parties at the same time feels a little less passive-aggressive to me.

mention the issue to a superior academic or change office.

That sounds like a massive overreaction, especially if you haven't even mentioned anything to her directly so far. Reporting your (co-)supervisor to some higher authority is a nuclear action of sorts, which you should definitely not do without exploring other options first. And even if you report this, I have a seriously hard time seeing anything coming out of it (aside from a pissed co-supervisor, that is).

The more fundamental issue here may be that your expectation of a "productive" workplace may be different from other students in the room. If you go over to Workplace.SE, there are plenty of questions of workers trying to convince their co-workers to hush up - but the fact of the matter remains that a dead-silent, only-strictly-required-talking workspace is simply not the preferred option for many people (I actually find it extremely uncomfortable if I sit in a shared office where nobody ever chats).
The only real practical solution to this problem is either to change office, or get / order noise cancellation headphones.

I would add that I would find messaging, especially a group message, to be rude.  This is something I would want to discuss face to face.  Of course you supervisor may be more receptive to messaging than me, so this answer is correct.  You could message if that feels right, but do consider talking in out.

Noise cancellation headphones are good for rhythmic background noise, but they offer no advantage over non-cancelling headphones for blocking the sound of people talking.

@Terry Yeah, I believe you have a point, since some people when talking sensetive matters prefer a verbal approach, since the written one can easily be used as a false proof if misread.

@Peter True, I actually have some noise cancelling headphones but they cannot eliminate talking noise.

@PhilipC. If the music is loud enough, you won't hear any talking.

Rather than noise cancelling headphones, I find normal earphones plus rain sounds or white noise to be pretty effective (and less distracting than music). You can find websites that generate these noises by Googling.

As @PeterTaylor says, noise-cancelling headphones do very little to block people talking. And, in any case, blocking the sound with music doesn't help if what you actually want is a quiet environment. And note that the question just says "quiet", not "silent". For example, I'm completely fine with (and often participate in) a bit of random chat in shared offices but, if you want to have a half-hour meeting or something like that, please go somewhere else or keep your voices right down.

@RodrigodeAzevedo You will also stop hearing anything after a while, even without headphones.

@Elzo That is quite true.

Talk to your advisor about it, politely.
You can simply ask: would it be possible to to have regular discussions in a separate space? I find the noise a bit distracting.
There’s no need for petitions, HR complaints, rants to lab mates or other passive aggressive behavior. You are both adults, try to assume you’re dealing with a reasonable person before doing anything that may damage your relationship.

Thank you for your answer, I agree with your point and you both determined the same. Wish I could upvote you guys both. Thanks for the support.

Petitions, HR complaints and rants aren't passive-aggressive: they're just plain aggressive.

I'd say it is best to approach this informally with your colleague. I believe that you may be seeing this from wrong perspective, which is why it appears to tough to just approach the person. Instead of considering it as a problem, consider it as just a difference in definition of shared space and its perks. The more you believe it is just a difference in definition the better you will come across in regards to it.
Mention, in similar words, that you were hoping for a more quiet shared environment as it seems to give the best productivity to the permanent residents. Assert that there are better suited areas for group discussions and mention relevant places.


text:
What is the meaning of the title "Akad. Orat"?
What is the meaning of the German academic title "Akad. Orat"? What would its international analogous be?

Via @mkennedy in a comment:
Nontenured, approximately assistant professor in the US system.
Expands out to Akademischer Oberrat.
See: Academic ranks in Germany

No, "Akademischer Oberrat" is generally tenured.

...and not a professor (no supervision of PhD students, no W1/2/3 salary scale, etc.)

Akademischer Oberrat is typically tenured (in the sense of a lifelong position), so this is something between assistant professor and associate professor in the US system.
If he or she also got their Habilitation they are Privadozent/Privatdozentin, which would then compare to associate professor.
The Wikipedia article cited by Bryan is misleading in this point, as "Akademischer Rat" is a position that could be granted temporarily ("auf Zeit") or permanently ("auf Lebenszeit"). However, as "Akademischer Oberrat" is generally a promotion from "Akademischer Rat" that one could only get after quite some time on the job, it is very unlikely for the temporary position (which is limited to 6 years).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do you motivate collaborators to meet deadlines, when there is no financial incentives involved in their work?
I'm becoming frustrated with an international collaborator that has been involved in the project since early this year. He has been responsible for translating the survey into another language and we aim to use his connections (via his University) to launch the project in their area.
He has been valuable and is important to the project. I admire his insights and suggestions. However, he takes FOREVER to get anything done, often suggesting more and more unnecessary changes to our survey and delaying delivery dates indefinitely.
As final deadlines are closely approaching, I have started setting deadlines for him to meet, asking him to identify why such delays, and encouraging energy into his end to get it launched. However, the same pattern emerges - more delays, extremely long turn arounds on work, and ambiguous excuses. I'm frustrated, but I believe he will deliver eventually.
I want him to launch the survey in his area. So, the question is - How do you motivate someone who is prone to delays when there are no financial incentives involved?
I believe I need to talk frankly to him and address these concerns over the phone (we work through Skype). How do you create a conversation that is frank, but fair? When is it time to let him go?

Is this collaborator a PI? If yes, do they have a PhD student/postdoc working on their part of the project for them? In case it's yes again, I'd suggest asking the PI if it would be ok to communicate directly with the PhD student/postdoc for practical issues, it's likely to help everybody.

I am the PI. He is collaborating with the project. It is expected that for using his University network for data collection he will receive co-authorship on the paper.

Perhaps you are asking for more than can be delivered. The other person, I assume, has his own projects and deadlines and, perhaps, needs to put those first.
Incentives can be other than financial, of course, but perhaps the incentives important to the other person are all directed toward making progress on work more important to them than to you.
Trying to beat up on someone who has been valuable to you is a mistake, I think. Setting deadlines for someone who is neither your advisee nor your employee is likely to be fruitless.
What incentive can you offer. The carrot, not the stick.

Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify:

I am only asking on what he has ensured he can deliver which is well within his scope.
Setting deadlines has been a means to help him reach set goals. Otherwise, the pattern of taking months to respond to simple emails will continue.
I don't want to 'beat up on him', I only want him to understand that whilst this may be a side project to him, it's my life and will lose funding if we don't deliver soon. After all, it's been 8 months with little progress. I need a commitment from him.

I can only offer co-authorship.

I'm sorry for you but if he's only getting co-authorship on a paper it's not very surprising that he's not very responsive.
Do you have any way to make it more interesting for him? Maybe a collaboration on a future project where he would get some of the funding? travel expenses paid for him to go to a conference? Or maybe you can help him on something else so that he can use the time saved this way on your project?
You should try to find out what this collaborator needs to be motivated, clearly the co-authorship is not enough.

Good ideas.  He is aware that this can open up into a wider project, but unfortunately I am simply a phd student and do not have many resources to offer him. Though I will try to think of ways to facilitate this.

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


text:
Historical Course Descriptions for Master's and Ph.D in Statistics/Data Science Programs
I'm writing to ask whether there's any references for course descriptions for the classes required of a master's degree back in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s, 1960s,...., 1900s. I wanted to know how the curriculum for masters degree in statistics has changed over time and how fast or when recent advancements trickle down to graduate education.
How fast does it take for institutions to change their curriculum with each new
fad in the development in Statistics? When was bootstrapping invented versus when was it taught in school? What's the newest technique in classification/prediction/machine learning or Statistical Theory or database management and when were those techniques marketed as courses taught in Master's or Ph.D programs?
Personally, I'm asking because I want to trace the development of Statistics and get a sense of how up to date my professors are in the field and find the most updated program. I'm not sure if they know how pervasive or old their knowledge is.
I'm not looking for individual program suggestions. It's the case that in computational sciences that things outdate. I don't know if some branches of Statistics are more updated than others are. Unfortunately there isn't a class in school called the History of Statistics and Data Science and Machine Learning and history of math is more famous.

This seems to be more about the content of research (into the history of education) rather than about Academia per se. People write PhD theses on this sort of thing.

Would this be better if migrated to stats.se?

Maybe hsm.stackexchange.com would be better still?

Course descriptions (what is written in a course catalog) are often not particularly up to date (who wants to rewrite and have that approved - I can just update the syllabus to show what I'm teaching). New stuff tends to come in quite quickly (if professors are active in research), but are often in the graduate seminar classes first, and those won't have detailed descriptions. Go to a large research library and trace back textbooks from each decade and see how they change.

I'll guess that it would be very difficult to get such information in any methodical way. In some fields, such as CS, professional societies publish undergraduate curriculum guides that are followed by many universities, at least in the US. But I've never heard of any such at any graduate level.
As you note, curriculum tends to change with the times and old courses are replaced with new ones. A university will probably keep an historical record for a few years, since it still has students that started under an earlier regime. Many will keep records for a longer time to help respond to student requests for information from graduates.
But there is no requirement that they be kept, that I'm aware of, and no regulatory body to assure it.
The most you could hope for is that some universities might have a local historian who can get access to archives of old course catalogs and compile the local information. But it would be pretty spotty, I think.
Another avenue that might produce some incomplete data, or provide a starting point, is to set up a workshop at a national or international conference, and invite professors near retirement to reflect on their own experiences with coursework in the field. This might produce some course titles, at least. And some people who taught over a long period might be able to do more.
But all of that is overkill for your stated purpose. A simpler way to answer your concerns is to just look at what they are publishing now. If nothing, then they are probably not up to date. If a lot, then they are possibly at the forefront. But even that is probably overkill. Most of your career will likely be concerned with things that are only present now in nascent form, or even currently entirely unexplored.
And for many of us (now retired) most of what we know is old or even obsolete. This is true even if we are at the forefront. Probably more true in CS than in statistics, actually, but still.
Moreover, for someone truly at the edge of the research world, their knowledge is likely to be deep but narrow. They examine the bark on a particular tree, never mind the tree, or the forest in which it grows. At the MS level all this is probably less important that it seems, though it becomes more so at the doctoral level when you need to find your own tree to study.


text:
My department is splitting. Should I be on one side or get a joint appointment?
I am a tenure track assistant professor in the "Department of X and Y" which is a single department for now.  Though my PhD is in X only, I now teach classes in both areas.  My research is mostly in the field of X, and my tenure committee consists of researchers in X.
These two areas have a significant salary imbalance.  The starting salary of assistant professor in Y is close to the salary of full professors in X.
This department is about to be split into "Department of X" and "Department of Y", and I sense that this may not be a very happy divorce.  I am now approached by the future Dept. of Y to be involved.  I can see 3 options:

Stay in Dept. of X and forget about Y.
Stay in Dept. of X and get a courtesy appointment from Dept. of Y.
Get an joint appointment.
Move to Dept. of Y completely

How should I evaluate my options?
My feeling, so far, is that option (1) should be the safe option.  I may loose most of my students, but likely stay out of trouble. Option (2) means I teach for both departments, which may not make sense, as I will be getting my salary from Dept. of X (much lower) and do half of the job in Dept. Y.  My teaching and service in Dept. Y will also not contribute to my tenure case.  Option (3) makes more sense financially and can potentially broaden my research area, but it may be impossible to keep two department chairs happy (especially when there are conflicts between the two).
Are there other factors I should be considering?
Update: Option (4), moving to Dept. of Y completely, is not an offer that is currently on the table. It is unlikely to ever be there, as I don't have a PhD in Y.

I assume you are not considering "4. Go to Dept. Y and forget about X."

Why not go into Y, if they pay so much more? You're clearly qualified to teach it, and it sounds like they feel you might be able to shift your research into the field.

Do you care about more about your research or more about your salary? Is the salary at Dept. X sufficient for a good living?

Option (4), go to Dept. Y and forget about X, is not an option that is being offered or considered.  Plus, it wouldn't be realistic to shift my research into field Y quickly enough to make a strong tenure case (I'm 3 years into my tenure clock).

Salary of Dept. X is sufficient for survival.  Once I make it to the associate rank, it should be okay, but still pretty laughable when compared to the Salary of Dept. Y though.  So the potential salary jump is a major attraction.  Will 20% more money worth the trouble of working for two bosses?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/83161/should-an-interdisciplinary-researcher-work-twice-as-hard. Also this: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/123414/40589

I have been told that not yet tenured people should be very wary of joint appointments and tenure committee considerations. "one cannot serve two masters" and all that. How tenure is decided on a joint situation would be very important to consider!

How much of a commitment is your decision now? Could you decide now to be solely Dept X, but in a year or two request a joint or courtesy appointment in Y?

I doubt lacking a PhD in Y matters as much as you make it sound

@BrianH - and if you are the first one up for tenure under the new structure, you likely become the guinea pig. Just how acrimonious the split was could impact the first individual quite badly. Tough position to be in, but we here have no insight into the politics of the split.

Did you speak to your dean about this?  I think most of the information you need to decide is given in the question.  The rest of what you need to know has to do with the personalities of your colleagues in the departments.

"I may loose most of my students" Do you mean students in your classes or students who perform your research?  They shouldn't be taking away your research students.

@AnonymousPhysicist - True, they cannot take away students who are support by my grant.  But I will not be allowed to supervise undergraduate senior projects or graduate students in Dept. Y unless they want to change their majors.

@BryanKrause - Having a PhD in Y is a requirement now to get tenure in Dept. Y.  Changing this is not easy.  It would basically require all tenured faculties' vote (Dept. Y is really small now, so any one tenured faculty would have veto power on this, at least according to the current rule book).

Having a PhD in Y is a high bar. Is it possible to get papers published in Y and get recognized that way? It sounds like you enjoy Dept Y but the politics is too toxic to placate both sides.

As in comments, for sure avoid getting yourself in the cross-hairs of political fights, as a tenure-track person.
Next, indeed, having mixed allegiances is not a good thing when you come up for tenure.
Possibly "being interdisciplinary" is a good thing, depending entirely on departmental politics. I've seen it go both ways (in my U.S. R1 univ): evidence of not being a real mathematician [sic], or, alternatively, being one of a new breed of mathematician.

What's wrong with staying in Department X? Other than having fewer students in the short term, it sounds like Department X is doing well? I'm not sure what might be causing the fissure in your department, though.

Nothing wrong with staying in Dept. X.  Getting involved in Dept. Y would mean more money and more students.

I finally decided to stay with Dept. X.  "Having mixed allegiances" does look like problematic when I come up for tenure.  "Serving two masters" is probably not possible in terms of service.  As Dept Y figuring out their tenure evaluation standard, there are just so many variables.  20% more salary may not worth the headache.  So I'm staying.


text:
Immatrikulation and PhD in Germany
Do PhD students (who work as research/teaching assistant and get paid according to the TV-L E13 bracket) in Germany get an official student enrollment from the university 'Immatrikulation'?

Please search this site thoroughly - this has almost certainly been asked (and answered) before. As a starting point try e.g. https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=Germany+E13 . The generic answer is yes, and yes, but it need not hold universally, so if you want a specific answer then you need to provide further details about your situation.

Depends. At my university in Germany, you could choose yourself if you want to enroll or not. Some enrolled, e.g. for the cheap bus ticket and student lunches, other didn't. But there is no general rule for that, every university or even every institute might have its own regulations.


text:
How do I properly cite a research paper?
I know this question already has a similar answer but, please bear with me. I am writing my thesis and I realize there are cases I do not know how to properly cite, as illustrated in the following scenario:

In literature review articles, for example, the author gives a summary of an idea that has been previously discovered by other papers. Although I thoroughly read these papers before I include the idea into my thesis, who should I give credit to? The review paper from which I got the idea in the first place or the paper that discovered the idea?
In other cases, the author gives his own educated guess. Yes, he does provide justification for his reasoning but in the end, it is clear his conclusion is only a guess-work. In my case, one famous author came up with a new theory that refute the existing one. The theory is becoming accepted by many researchers but it still holds lots of holes that, to some extends, seem like it is a backward step compared to the existing theory. When it is clear that the famous author is only making speculations to support his theory, how can I properly cite this and distance myself from the claim? I don't wanna say I believe what he says (because he cannot convince me with evidence) but I need to include his paper for completeness of my literature review.
I know I should paraphrase the author's idea and only use quotation marks when I use word-for-word what the author said. However, how much paraphrasing should I do? I am finding myself looking for a synonym of something that clearly does not have any. And in some cases, using a synonym would actually obscure the meaning of the sentence.
For those of you with experience, please add any other citation-related issue you would like me to take into consideration.

If you're even slightly unsure about these issues talk to your advisor!!

Why not both?
"As summarized in \cite{A}, both \cite{B} and \cite{C} equally
contributed to the discovery of $FancyResult."
"Smith et al discussed a new approach in \cite{X}. While the result is not yet complete (see \cite{X1,X2,X3} for work on it and \cite{Y1,Y2} for critiques), it contains interesting aspects that shouldn't be overlooked."
It is usually not a problem to use the same word as an author, especially if it is a technical or predefined term. Especially if you mention the source in the same paragraph, no one should blame you for that. As soon as you start quoting whole sentences, you should make that clear though. If you feel like you are just repeating the whole paper in (as good as possible) your own words, take a step back and think about what you want to achieve with the literature review. You want to give your reader an understanding of what has been done and is currently been done in your field. This should enable the reader to both understand your work, and also understand that your work is a viable contribution to current research topics. One way to do this and avoiding copying papers is to chain multiple together. Think about what you want to discuss, then discuss topic X and put all sources for this topic into your text where appropriate.
Make sure that your citations (bibtex or whatever you use) are all in the same style. Especially if you pull them of the Internet, they might differ, e.g. some places put "Lastname, Firstname", others put "F. Lastname" or "Lastname, F.". You can avoid this, to some extend, by always using the same source for your bibtex code (e.g. google scholar), but even there you should check it properly.
Also, if you have multiple citations in a single \cite, try to order them ascending. Simply because something like ", ... this was already shown in [5,18,2]" doesn't look as nice as "... already shown in [2,5,18]".
Of course, the standard advices like "don't cite what you haven't read or don't fully understand" applies, but I guess you are aware of that.

Overall: Don't worry about formal rules too much. You are telling a story, make it good, informative and interesting to read. Do so why following the rules and stay professional as required in your field of course, but don't make the rules your number one priority.
And just for completeness: Also discuss these questions with your advisor, they might see things differently than this random guy on the Internet, and in the end they are the one grading your thesis.

Ad 1.: people often write "... B ... C ... (see A for a review)."

Thanks very much for your answer. I learned a lot!


text:
Individual contribution to PhD thesis as a part of bigger project
I have a question related to the personal contribution to PhD thesis (physics, materials science), when it was a small part of a big project and there were no real hypothesis or problem in your thesis "topic" except "we have these samples, go investigate them and find some results to report on"
(yes, it is not the right way to do projects, but it happens and a good lesson for the future, which projects you should avoid =/).
As an outcome, PhD thesis is based on results, half of which was obtained by collaborators (other students). It is rather common situation as far as I understood - one group prepares samples and performes characterization; then you, being from another group, get these samples and investigate them using different methods. But then you use results of the characterization (made not by you but it is a part of joint publication) in your thesis before discussing data you got by yourself, because it makes sense to show the characterization to have a complete story.
The question: is it acceptable to submit a PhD thesis written in this way, where you did about 50% of all discussed results, the rest is done by others and this rest is included in joined publications? Surely, in every chapter it is mentioned if you did the measurement or it was done by coauthor/collaborator.
Have a great day and thank you in advance!
Hope I could explain more or less clear, what I would like to know.

If it is acceptable to your institution, then it is acceptable. I think that in a lot of lab sciences people in a given lab collaborate with each other quite extensively to contribute to the overall goals. Doctoral theses arise in this environment just as you say. Some one (PI?) hacks off a piece of a larger problem and passes it to a student to develop and report on. If it has "acceptable" significance then the student has a thesis. Hopefully it also advances the larger goals of the organization.
But this is largely due to the fact that, to do anything at all in such fields, that collaboration is required, along with the PI who provides the lab through grants. It can be quite different in other fields, but they have their own standards and processes.

Of course, the student could see an opportunity for a smaller problem in the context of the larger one, just as the PI can. I don't mean to imply that it is always the PI that initiates it. Usually the student will check with the PI whether it is good to pursue the idea.


text:
What is an optimal reading order for a set of related papers?
A common problem I encounter every time I do a literature search on a new subject is determining a reading order for papers.  It feels akin to jumping into a prolific sci-fi fantasy series, but since there usually don't exist enthusiastic fan bases for a random subset of papers on numerical methods for PDEs, I'm always struggling to figure out how to get started.  My default is chronological order (oldest to newest), but this frequently poses problems if the oldest paper is using outdated notation or technology.  A newest to oldest reading order has the problem that it might assume background information from previous papers, which leaves me feeling like I have to keep jumping around texts and never really get a coherent picture of any of them.
Does anyone have better ideas for determining an "optimal" reading order for related academic papers?  Perhaps a simple metric for ranking importance (but not citation counts, since this would skew towards older papers).
Note that when I say ``read a paper," I'm already employing a multi-stage technique where I read the abstract, conclusion, and introduction, then skim the text, and afterwards decide whether it's worth downloading and reading in detail. So the set of papers I have now, I've determined are worth really reading in detail.

Sadly, you probably need to read them all to figure out the order to read them in.

Usually the sensible alternative to starting at the beginning - if a topic has been going for a long time - is to find a good, recent review. Or a textbook.

Ideally, a well-written literature review from a single (recent) research paper should tell you everything you need to decide how to approach their particular research niche. Assuming you fit within the audience addressed by the journal the paper is published in.

Although the tip to read a review paper is nice, it's ignoring a key point in my question: I've already deduced a set of papers, some of which may have been found through a review paper in the first place.  Also, it's possible that there exists no review paper for my topic (or that I might be the one writing it).

I often struggle with the same question.  One approach which I find often gives good results is to start by skimming through all the papers (typically in chronological order) and use this first reading to decide on a more appropriate reading order, typically starting with the ones which seem more introductory or survey-like and ending with the more detailed ones.

I was hoping to avoid another round of skimming, but you make a good point here.  Thanks for the simple solution!

Not sure if this applies to your particular field but in mine I used to have the same problem. What I discovered (too late in my PhD) is that textbooks and review papers tend to be very useful and can point you to the right papers so that's something worth trying if you haven't already. I also found it more usefult to start with more recent papers and then follow the chain of references back in time on aspects that I found important or interesting.

Yeah, I've tried the approach of recent-to-oldest, but most of the time, I get frustrated not understanding the context-- a bit like watching the end of a show without having seen the earlier ones.

I think a general answer to such a general question is not possible. It depends on those papers and you don't know how it depends until you have some understanding of each of them and how they fit together - the progression of the main idea(s).
But I also think you have explained a pretty good general strategy: get a general idea of each and then plunge in where it seems needed.
But it is also true that you don't need to completely understand every idea in each of the papers. You started with one of the papers for a purpose, I suspect. Read enough, and understand enough, to meet your purpose.
But also, take a lot of notes as you read. If you read on paper you can easily make marginal notes for some of it. But it is also good to write brief summaries of each paper, keyed to your original purpose.

Just to add: As soon as you want to cite the paper, you definitely should understand it completely (way too many people cite something without even reading it properly...).

@Dirk I'd say you need to understand the other paper only to the degree that your claim about it implies you understand it. Though it would certainly be nice if people worked harder to pick the best possible reference, rather than simply one that fits.


text:
How to find out salary for faculty positions in private universities?
Public university salary information is usually available online.  What about private universities?  Can average salary by field and rank be found at least?
Context: US/North America, mathematics

Some aggregate information may be available from the US department of education. But individual salaries at private universities is, I assume, not generally available. The reason it is available (in some places) for public universities is that faculty are considered "public employees", so the public has a right to know, at least in general terms. (Not everywhere, I think). There is, however, a law that requires universities to divulge their highness paid employees. This is usually a coach or medical or legal faculty, however. Occasionally the college president. Few mathematician, though.

https://data.chronicle.com/

For the US and mathematics in particular, the American Mathematical Society conducts annual salary surveys, broken down by various categories: public/private, highest degree offered in the department, rank, etc.  For example, in 2017-2018, at "large" private PhD-granting mathematics departments, the mean salary for new hire assistant professors was $94,675.

It's far from perfect, but you could try looking at AAUP's Faculty Compensation Survey. This won't allow you to search by field, but it will show you average salaries by rank for each institution.

https://data.chronicle.com


text:
Does work experience in non-related field help in grad school admissions?
USA: Does work experience help for graduate admissions non-phd in STEM fields?
Someone told me yes, because if I already have a job, the grad school can be assured that I'll have a job after graduation and I won't hurt their statistics on job placement among alumni.
I disagree because I think that if the program is rigorous, all students who graduate should because of the greatness of the program be able to find jobs.
ONly if the program is insecure about their program's usefulness and quality should the program decide to admit students on whether they've already got a job. cough cough lots of MBA programs...  I believe only diploma mills would care about whether the applicant already has a job to decide whether they should get admitted.

It might have been useful to state the country you are inquiring about as this may be different all over the world.
However, in my experience, the people who oversee the admission process are not at all related to the people who create the statistics. They admit you because they believe you could handle the program - not because of some job prospects. Relevant job experience could be one factor which makes it more likely that you succeed (or not).
Indeed, most professors I know see their programms not as a way to obtain a (non-academic) job, but rather as a way to spread deep academic knowledge.  (I don't disagree with this view.) I don't see how a good academic program would by itself mean a job guarantee.
Edit: I just saw that you write "non-related" field in the title. Again, there is no yes/no answer to this question. Some professors might see this experience as positive since it might show that you have certain skills, others may see that you are not loyal enough to their field..


text:
How to supervise an undergraduate reading a paper for the first time?
I am helping supervise a senior student who is reading a scientific research paper for the first time. The goal is to understand a portion of this paper and write an essay presenting the background, and filling in the details.
The student has not brought anything concrete the past few meetings. I can see that they are struggling with the setup, and I am not sure how much do I let them struggle without spoonfeeding them the details. They also overestimate how much they really know and or understand, and clearly show that they feel bad about themselves when I point that out.
We are not pressed to produce something substantial. My own goal is for them to develop skills that are going to make their life easier later on. I have no experience how to manage this human part of the project.

How much time do you have to read the paper? One semester, one year, two weeks, etc?

We have until the end of the academic year to hand in the essay.

When is the end of the academic year in terms of weeks from now (since different countries have different academic years)?

We have 6.5 months left.

Have you explained the basic structure of a scientific paper to them? Abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions?

@nick012000 I was hoping for them to figure that out on their own (and to recognize the papers cited they might want to check out as well). I might want to explain those things to them.

I would ask the student for a written summary of the paper as they understand it along with a list of questions they have about the parts they don't understand. This can give you an idea of whether they are on the right track or not.
Make sure that they understand that it is just a summary (main points) not just a restatement of the whole paper, which might be able to be done with little real understanding. What is important about the paper.
The questions are also helpful for your guidance. But you don't necessarily need to answer the questions. If the student is diligent, then you can help them by pointing to how they can answer the questions themselves: a book or some computation, whatever.
A couple of cycles of this and they might even have an outline of their final report.
There is another benefit to the student, actually. They not only get to practice writing, but they get to plan what they say and the questions they ask. This is probably more comfortable to many students than facing a professor who asks them questions that they need to quickly come up with a response for. Some students will freeze up and seem to know less than they really do.


text:
Should I stop applying faculty positions after I take on a postdoc job
I may have a postdoc job offer. The professor for the postdoc still hesitates to make a final decision and asked me if I can confirm my commitment (working for at least one year). I have finished one-year postdoc (not at the professor's institution) and have been very actively looking for faculty positions.
If I make the commitment, does that mean I have to stop applying faculty positions, at least for the first year? I am not sure if this is common practice for postdoc-supervisors.

A postdoc position is not a reason to stop applying for faculty positions. A postdoc is a stepping stone towards a faculty position. If you manage to get a faculty position you don't need the stepping stone anymore and should quit and start the new position. Any reasonable advisor should support that.

This is totally backwards. First the offer, then you commit yourself.

@Karl it's very common for people to not want to make an offer unless you assure them you will accept it. Along the same lines, they may only want to hire you if you assure them you will stay. It's pretty one-sided of course, but you are free to refuse to make such assurances. You are also usually free to renege on your promise, with usually no more than some guilt and a burned bridge to worry about. But, as always, be careful what you sign...

@ASimpleAlgorithm It`s fair to say "I will kick off your hiring process, (starting with a formal offer), if you say you intend to stay for a full year, and confirm that you have no other obligations." The question reads a bit differently to me.

@Karl Hmm I think I do see a difference of interpretation here. I understand the question to use the word "commitment" as in the job contract itself, once made. The OP is asking if they are truly stuck once they sign on the dotted line. The title of the question would seem to support this reading.

Don't stop exploring other positions, as long as you give the current prospective position the same amount of attention as if you weren't applying for other positions.
Remember that the academic hiring cycle is usually several months long. Applications you submit now will land you interviews in the spring, with jobs starting in the fall - nearly a year from the application time! If the professor is only willing to give you a one year commitment, you may need to start applying for faculty jobs this cycle to have a job lined up when their commitment to you ends.
In that time period it's also to your benefit to work hard turning the crank and getting out publications that you can show off during your on-site interviews. Thus, your goals (to get publications to land a job) and your prospective boss's goals (get publications out of the postdoc for the next grant submission/tenure review/...) are well aligned. Also keep in mind that postdoc is a training period, not just a purgatory you must suffer through to get the faculty position. Presumably you're taking this new position because you believe this professor has the ability to help you get high-level publications and can teach you something about how to be a successful faculty member. Amongst all the applications, interviews, research, etc., don't forget to make the most of your current position and learn what you can from this prospective supervisor.

Don't stop exploring other positions until you have a firm commitment from the professor. The situation is mutual. You both have to agree before anything is finalized. Until then you are still free to consider all options.
By firm commitment, I mean something that you can put your signature to.


text:
Is it necessary to get permission if an article is to be summarized?
I would like to open a blog on my company's website in which I would create posts to talk about different research related to a particular topic. The blog would be educational, however the company is for profit.
For example, a post could be about "does depression influence job performance?" and in this post I would talk about 3 or 4 papers that investigated this, how they did it and what conclusions they reached.
Would I need authorization for this type of use? (I'm just mentioning the facts, but I'm not quoting anything).
would I need authorization if I made a few small textual quotations?
I would logically reference the authors and the papers. But to obtain the authorizations of the companies that possess the rights of the article would be something tiresome.

As you describe what you want to do, you wouldn't need permission. You need to avoid plagiarism by citing and you need to avoid copyright infringement by not over-quoting. But your description is probably safe.
In particular, for purposes of analysis and criticism the copyright laws (most places) are a bit more lenient than otherwise. These normally come under fair use rules. But only quote when necessary. But you can describe what the papers found and how they went about coming to their results.
But note that the law is variable.
But if you are using papers of living authors it might make your blog more interesting if you seek comment from the authors and incorporate those comments into the posts. That would need their permission, though.

Do you think that in my case applies "analysis and criticism"? Because it's more a review. My idea is not to go into questioning or analyzing the research in depth. I just want to tell what conclusion the investigations came to and how they did it.

Unless the place you are in has unusually strict copyright laws you should be fine.


text:
Is it common to have peer teaching evaluation for tenured/tenure-track faculty every year?
Is it common for US public universities to enforce peer teaching evaluations (have professors sit in each others' classes) for tenured faculty member every year? What about requiring evaluation twice a year for tenure-track faculty members?

In my dept at a US public university, we do this every semester for all untenured faculty.

I can't say exactly how common it is, but it happens. But it is most likely in the first couple of years of a probationary (tenure track assistant professor) contract and less likely for tenured professors. It might even be required each once in each year of the contract. And if problems with teaching have arisen, then it is more likely that it will be needed.
It can be nerve wracking, of course, but if well done it can be a valuable assist to an inexperienced teacher. Ideally the person visiting is willing to become a teaching mentor to the newcomer. Ideally the person visiting has a superior record of teaching and knows many of the tricks that help the professor avoid pitfalls and respond appropriately to student needs.
But like any other skill, teaching effectively needs to be learned. In a situation in which people come to the task with little background it is good to provide some help in becoming both comfortable and effective in the classroom.
Sometimes the visitor needs to make a written report for the junior faculty member's file. Other times a meeting afterwards is enough.
It is possible that it should happen more than it does, but it shouldn't be haphazard. Thought needs to be given to who does the visiting and the consequences of the visit.

"Ideally the person visiting has a superior record of teaching"... of course, the more often these evaluations happen, the less likely is one to get such a good visitor :)

The questions asks "is it common" and this non-answer explicitly does not answer.

@AnonymousPhysicist, you seem to have taken on the role of judging my posts as non-answers. Do I offend you in some way?

No, I'm not offended at all.  I know you are capable of writing great answers, but you don't seem to be able to tell which ones are the great ones and which ones are not.  The help center says "Read the question carefully. What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that..."   Most of the participants on this site do that, and I think it's great.  Sometimes  you do, sometimes you don't, but you post more answers than other people.  So I think you should stop posting the answers that do not respect the directions in the help center.

Also, I believe we have discussed this before and your answering pattern has not changed.

If you don't want your posts critiqued, this is not the site for you.

Folks, knock it off. Rather than criticizing an answer writer, just post your own.


text:
Regarding asking for writing about some courses in my CV in which I got bad grades due to my non interest in those courses
I am a masters student in an Asian country and I am looking for applying for PHD Position in Europe in pure mathematics.
During my masters in my Institute I had a lot of applied maths courses and in some ( almost half) of applied maths courses I got 6 or 7 grade ( out of 10) despite the fact that I tried to study. But In pure mathematics courses I have very good grades and also the branch I wanted to do phd is not offered in my university. I studied it myself and did one internship and I am confident in that particular branch and I am really interested in it. ( so, studying a different topic also took considerable time from applied courses. )
My question is -- how to write this effectively in Cv and Whether it's right to right as I am not trying to give an excuse so that my chances of admission are not hampered.
Please guide .

My general advice in such situations is to stress the positive in any application. Show the reviewer that you are a good candidate for success both in background and in work habits. Don't focus on explaining things that aren't positive but be prepared to respond when/if asked about them.
While the competition for a slot in a good university is very strong, nobody is perfect. And you won't know how competitive you are until you apply.
If you have a fairly narrow focus you intend to follow in graduate studies, focus on that and how you are especially well prepared to work in that field. Be enthusiastic, not apologetic.

Caveat. I don't know how your grades are interpreted by your own university, not how they will be seen when you apply. But focus on the good stuff, not the bad.

@ Buffy in my research interests, I am writing about how many topics I have studied till now in  elementary number theory, analytic number theory ( I am applying for a phd position in analytic number theory) . What else a standard CV must have in research interests apart from topics already studied in the field a person wants to do phd. Please guide

Your CV is a complete, if somewhat boring, statement about what you have done. Focus instead on your expressions of intent and suitability. This goes by different names, but you normally get to express yourself in your own terms, stressing what you think important. Focus on that part more than the CV. Make your case.

@ Buffy  ok thank you very much for your advice.

I'm not a mathematician, so take this answer with a grain of salt, but ...
I strongly recommend not framing your grades as "I was not interested in these courses so I did badly in them" (assuming that 6/10 is indeed not good - I have no idea how the read this grading scale correctly).
As a hiring committee member, my mind goes immediately into envisioning you as a student who is only able or willing to put the work in on things that directly interest you. This is generally not a desirable property in a graduate student, as no student ever gets to do only things they love. Even in grad school, and assuming that your project actually is of high interest to you, there will likely be aspects that aren't. Maybe it's the course you are teaching, maybe it's part of the coursework you have to do, maybe it's something completely different - not all of these are crucial to your success, but most advisors would rather not see you fail in any of these aspects. Further, most of us have seen too many students (temporarily) fall out of love with their research subject (remember that grad school can be quite a marathon), and during these times it is crucial for students to be able to soldier on.

You can of course write that your lack of interest in these subjects was holding you back, but I encourage you to also give an indication that you understand that this isn't a good excuse. What is done is done, but you need to convince the committee that you are not going to do badly in every task in grad school that's outside of your core interest.

@ xLeitix Thank you very much


text:
What to expect when pursuing a second doctorate in an unrelated field
Long story short: I got a PhD a few years ago (let's say, in numerical methods for nonlinear PDEs).  I've since gotten experience with a couple post-docs and a variety of collaborators, but I'm not really satisfied with what I'm doing.  I feel out of place.
Earlier in life, I made a tough decision between science and humanities-- my other passion has always been, let's say, east Asian languages.  If my bachelors program had had better language courses or options for "hybrid" fields like computational linguistics, I probably would have gone that route, instead of fully focusing on math.
I've sought out collaborations that might help me bridge the gap between math and languages; I've also looked at postdocs to help make the transition.  I've reached out to leaders at research groups who do stuff I'm really interested in.  The common denominator is: I'd need a PhD in some kind of linguistics to research seriously what I want. So...
What key things should I take into consideration when pursuing a doctorate, given that I have a doctorate in an unrelated field?
Please consider the question within the following context: I'm not asking whether having two PhDs is good or bad (I frankly don't care), how to needlessly pad my name with titles, or how to get two PhDs simultaneously. (That is all to say: this post doesn't answer my question.)  I'm asking about what to expect when changing careers, specifically, if the source career is in one academic field and the target career is in another, unrelated field.  Assume I've 100% decided to leave my current field and pursue this second doctorate, for the purpose of changing careers. Assume also that I already have substantial content knowledge in the target field, as I have a bachelors degree in it already, and it's been an avid hobby for most of my life.
Some sub-questions that don't need to be specifically answered, but I think help narrow the question: in what way could my current PhD be a hindrance in getting into a new program?  Will my supervisors and colleagues see my past PhD as an asset, or as weird-looking mole they will try to politely ignore?  What are other questions should I ask myself to prepare for such a non-traditional career path?
Note: I've edited this question multiple times in a vain attempt to get the duplicate label removed. If you agree, please vote.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/17245/9482

That post isn't relevant-- I'm not trying to do two PhDs at once.

I disagree that the answer is not relevant to you, but that's your prerogative to decide.

Despite the asker's insistence that this question is different, the question really is a duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17232/is-doing-two-phds-a-good-path/17245#17245 because the answer is there is no need for two PhDs.

It doesn't matter if you do two PhDs at the same time or in sequence.  You still have an unnecessary PhD.

This doesn't feel like a dupe - it's not asking "should I do a second PhD", it's asking "I want to do a second PhD, how do I...". We might consider that unadvisable (though I know at least one person who has seriously considered it for decent reasons), and we might preface answers with that view, but that doesn't make the question invalid.
HOWEVER. It's quite a broad and vague question - I'd encourage the asker to make it clear exactly what specific thing they would like to know

Sorry but I voted this post to be closed. "Are my chances of getting accepted into another program low..." This is too dependent on your resume, nobody can give you specific advice here without knowing details of career path, background, etc.

Since the question is closed, I just leave a comment here. My suggestion, learn East Asia languages by being there first (you should be able to do this since you have a PhD in STEM). After you are familiar with some East Asian languages, then pursue the new field.

Discussion meta question about the closure.

In my experience, nonstandard paths like what you propose are initially viewed with surprise, and with varying degrees of suspicion. That includes admission committees, potential supervisors, fellow students, etc. However, that comes from uncertainty and unfamiliarity and can be shaped by the narrative you supply, and how you follow through.
Basically, people will probably have 3 archetypes in mind when you first contact them. The most positive one is that you are some sort of polymath genius. The most negative one is that you are a serial fail-to-deploy-in-life perpetual student, a model everyone in academia has encountered. And the 3rd is that you want to do research in some unexpected interesting intersection of your old and new field (which you've said is not the case). You therefore need to replace that narrative with a truer, credible, if possibly slightly airbrushed one, something like: you've always been interested in both X and Y, initially pursued interesting topics in X leading to a Ph.D. and start of a promising career, but are increasingly passionate about Y and want to refocus on that. I would be open that you don't expect to directly harness your expertise in X, but that you do expect that your background will help you be a very effective student in Y.
And then you need to back that up with your actions! Your Ph.D. is a credential indicating you have demonstrated the ability to advance the state of the art of knowledge in some field, and that you have learned sufficient academic "tradecraft" to be an independent researcher, at least from a competence point of view. (Footnote: The at-best only partial independence of a post-doc, and indeed the whole post-doc position, is more a reflection of funding realities than of a junior academic's presumed research abilities). So if someone with a Ph.D. and post-docs would approach me, I would expect them to be able to motor through the usual initial stages of a Ph.D. much more quickly than a "new" graduate student. I would expect that they will have done a fair amount of foundational reading in the field already -- that's something that hardly needs an advisor, though an advisor will be helpful in helping identify important strands that may be nonobvious from the outside. And I would expect them to arrive with some well-developed thoughts on potential research topic, though of course we might well adjust it together.
If you were to come with this type of pre-preparation, I'd consider you a lower-risk admit -- as a committee member or prospective advisor -- than someone whose basic skilset is unproven. Conversely, if you were to arrive, with the background you describe, with the typical keen-but-blank-slate mindset a fresh-out-of-undergrad student usually brings, then I would be more worried you belong to the serial-failure-to-deploy archetype instead.
Second, I would suggest you be very open about discussing your financial expectations. Do you need/expect funding (and is it usual in your target field)? Or can you fund yourself by continuing to work in your current field part-time? Or do you have enough saved up from a well-paid science/tech job (and academics in the humanities/social sciences tend to assume all science/tech jobs are well paid....) that you will be self-supporting? All of those are acceptable, just avoid unpleasant surprises from failing to bring up the topic.
Good luck!

This is exactly the kind of run-down I was looking for.  May I ask what your field is?  Just curious which angle you're coming from. (Broad "science" or "humanities" is fine.)

This answer (especially the reactions) read very Northern American. Is this corrext?

Applied science (myself) but informed by discussions with spouse (social science / humanities). Yes, North American. However, would expect still relevant in UK and Australia (for example, based on my exposure there) but not Germany, which is a very different model.

Being associated with DACH countries, I can say it's not that different.  I'd have to apply and interview for a doctoral position instead of apply for a program, and the financial compensation would be better.  The core advice, however, is still relevant.

It's very difficult to give a general answer, since so many things depend on the specifics of the field, the location, and various other factors.

Chances of being accepted: that completely depends on where you apply and whether your background matches the requirements for a particular PhD programme and/or a particular supervisor/topic.
Already having a PhD is definitely not standard. I would imagine that some supervisors will see it as an asset: in some respects, they would get a postdoc for the price of a PhD student. I would imagine that supervisors who are looking for a PhD student who does exactly what they want would prefer a "virgin" PhD student.
You should primarily ask yourself whether you can afford and are ready to spend a good few more years living on a PhD stipend. You should also be ready to give up on any little academic freedom you have as a postdoc.

A couple more remarks:

For the record, the field of Computational Linguistics (CL; and its twin field Natural Language Processing, NLP) existed a long time before deep learning became a thing. It's true that it is some kind of hybrid field, but in my experience the vast majority of the research done nowadays is on the technical side (more computer science than linguistics).
This is why the context described in the link "double doctorate" in your question strikes me as very different: the author did a second PhD which consisted in "writing a monograph on a long-forgotten Scottish intellectual". In my experience PhDs in CL/NLP are rarely this kind of book writing exercise that can be done as a hobby.

I should have remarked earlier: I'm not being totally honest about my source or target fields on purpose.  I appreciate your specific remarks nonetheless.


text:
Are there standard terms to say source was already cited (1) above (2) below?
I screen shot pp 5-6, Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (4 edn 2012). It doesn't answer question up in title.
I want terms for "already cited" 'cause I don't want to write down same source twice, but some authors always cite long form - even sources they already cited. But they never say they already cited it, and I write down the same source like 5 times until I re-read my notes. If they did, much time saved!!!!

I added the law tag.

I thought the legal term was ibid?


text:
How do you balance school and study?
I know there's many different questions that involve having a life with a healthy work-life balance but my question is different: I'm looking for a balance between my school life(high school) and studying.
But I don't mean studying for school-related stuff. We usually have enough time to study in class and sometimes during lunch hours. I'm talking about my independent studies involving math and programming.
What's stopping me from doing so? Well, when I get home from school, I only have about 3 to 4 hours until I go to sleep so that leaves me with 3 hours at most to study when you count things like eating, bathing, etc(nothing unnecessary) which is way less than what I want. This is making me loathe school and not want me to pursue a college degree because I feel like if I had more time to do math and programming, I could accomplish much more than I am now and so school is preventing me from reaching my best self.
I have tried many things. First, I asked my math teacher to put a grade higher for math which she did(I'm in grade 9 but I do grade 10 math) but I find the classes way too easy(I dare say even easier than grade 9 math that my friends are doing) so I bring my own stuff to work on but for some reason, the teacher told me I can't be doing that even if I have done everything she's asked for and am not disturbing anyone else(I asked my teacher to put me up yet another grade but he said no because then when I reach grade 11, I won't have anything to do).
I try to do math in my other classes as well but if the teacher finds out(which, on many occasions, my teachers have), they would just get understandably mad so I need to be really careful to not get caught but that requires me to pay attention to my surroundings which decreases my focus to do math problems.
I also get tutored by a grad at my local university but we have at most two 2-hour classes per week so although it's definitely helping me, it's not that huge.
My question is, have you ever been in such a situation? If so, what did you do about it and how was the outcome?
Sorry this is so long, I tried to make it as short as possible:)
Thank you so much for your time!
P.S: I have the tag "work-life-balance" because it's the closest thing I could find to my question but if you think there's a better tag, please feel free to change it

Just one remark: Do you have enough time to develop your social skills (i.e. time with friends)?

I don't think you should work on math in your other classes (although your enthusiasm is a good thing). Why do you take a math class above your current level, but require tutoring?

@JonasSchwarz Well, the tutoring is actually CS and the math involved is grade 12 math(I live in NB, Canada so depending on where you live, it might be different). So the math that I do at school is much, much easier than my tutorings.

@Thomas Yeah I usually try to reserve my weekends for social activities because without them, I know I can't keep my current schedule for more than a couple weeks since I don't have a lot of leisure time no weekdays.

@tesrytety: That's really great! Far too often you see "genius kids" without any human skills.

Maybe try asking students on the forums at artofproblemsolving.com how they handle this. They must have the same problem. I think it makes sense for you to work on whatever you want during class, as long as you're making good grades, and if I were a teacher I'd let you do that. The last thing I would want to do as a teacher is waste your time. Maybe you can go to college early -- I know of at least one example where this has worked out well, because the student was genuinely beyond anything his high school could offer him and he was ready to succeed in college.

You might be interested in this essay by Paul Graham. "What bothers me is not that the kids are kept in prisons, but that (a) they aren't told about it, and (b) the prisons are run mostly by the inmates. Kids are sent off to spend six years memorizing meaningless facts in a world ruled by a caste of giants who run after an oblong brown ball, as if this were the most natural thing in the world. And if they balk at this surreal cocktail, they're called misfits."

@tesrytety may I have your personal contact information? I would like to answer your question and give suggestions but this webpage is apperantly not to place for it.

@tesrytety took a note of it, you may erase your email if you would like

It seems like there are three things going on here.

This is making me loathe school and not want me to pursue a college degree because ... school is preventing me from reaching my best self.

First, it sounds like you are asking whether to give up on school. In 9th grade, I wouldn't! University is completely different than high school - you have a lot of freedom to choose your courses, you can select into advanced electives, and no one is micromanaging your attendance or behavior in lecture halls. It sounds like you would do much better in this environment.
While some people can and do successfully study independently, I think this would be very hard at your age. Even if you are exceptionally talented, you might more out of your abilities if someone is able to point you to new ideas and topics to work on.

I asked my math teacher to put a grade higher for math which she did ... I asked my teacher to put me up yet another grade but he said no because then when I reach grade 11, I won't have anything to do.

There are two possibilities. First, even if you can manage academically, the school might not want to put you two grades up for social reasons (has anyone else ever done this?). For example, the teacher might be refusing to advance you because you're not mature enough or might get bullied.
Assuming that is not the case, then it sounds like the teacher might not know what to do with you :) Then, I see two options. Either, you need to find and propose a constructive alternative - such as investigating whether you can enroll for credits in your local community college once you're in 11th grade. Or, you need to try and transfer to a new school that will give you such alternatives.

I bring my own stuff to work on but for some reason, the teacher told me I can't be doing that even if I have done everything she's asked for and am not disturbing anyone else

Yes, this is not a good idea. Even if you think you're being unobtrusive, it can distract your neighbors and create the impression that you are getting special treatment, or worse - that no one else needs to pay attention either. Fundamentally, try to empathize with the fact that your teacher is trying to command your and your peers' respect and maintain an engaged classroom. This also goes for your other subjects - you'll need to work hard in all your classes to show your teachers that you take them seriously.
At the end of the day, I recommend that you propose an alternative which demonstrates that you have a well-thought out plan. You will need to have adult allies who can speak to your potential (such as your parents, or a supportive mentor), and you should try to make the conversation happen at a higher level (rather than negotiating with each teacher). For example, I'd recommend setting up a meeting between your parents and your school principal to discuss your options. Rather than framing the situation as trying to "get out of" your classes, try to frame it as an effort to move forward -- to meet the requirements of your high school, and then go on to challenge yourself even further.  Ask your school to help you do this and realize your potential.
I know someone who was in your situation and I realize how frustrating it can be. I hope you can find a good solution that lets you do what you're passionate about! In the worst case, try to remember that you have summers, and holidays, and weekends -- and that things will eventually get better once you graduate and get to go on to the next (more challenging) level.

One more note: you could also try to investigate summer intensives like this one: https://cty.jhu.edu/summer/grades7-12/

(re-writing my answer after some further reflection)
It seems that right now, you have a burning passion to be studying Math and Computer Science, which is very commendable. However, my advice would be to spend some time now working on a longer-term plan for your future, and how your passion for these areas fits into it. At a basic level, I would suggest a key goal of this plan should be: 'how do I get to a position where I am doing what I am passionate about and getting paid a live-able wage to do it?'
So, your plan might be to go to a top tier college and major in CS, then go on to do a PhD, then become an academic in that area. Or, alternatively, it might be to major in that area and then go and work for a particular company in Industry that is doing work in an area that excites you, which is closely-related to those fields of study.
Then, once you have that longer-term plan, you can look more closely at the details of how can you get to that destination as quickly as possible and what the next step should be. You can also look more closely at what the requirements are for that next step. For example, you can (and should) reach out to some of the top 5 colleges you are planning to apply to, to see what their entrance requirements are.
You might find that they are looking for candidates that are fairly well-rounded and have shown excellence over a range of courses, not just one or two. You might also find that you would need to get a good score on an SAT-style standardized test, which might require knowledge beyond just Math and CS. If this is the case, then you know you can't afford to neglect your other courses. However, knowing that they are required for you to take the next step towards your longer-term goal should give you more motivation to study them, because now they are no longer pointless and irrelevant to your life.
On the other hand, you might find a college that would be willing to take you on sooner, if you are showing exceptional potential in one or two subjects, regardless of your performance in other areas. If that is the case, it might provide you with a quicker path to your destination and then you may be able to afford to slack off a bit more in those other subjects. But, I think it's very important that you verify this first. I.e. you need to do your research to see what options are available for your continued education and what they require.
You might also find that some colleges prefer candidates that can show evidence of extra-curricular activities, such as sports or music. If that is the case, then it might be well worth investing some of your extra time into some of those activities, as a means of helping you to reach your end goal, of being paid to do what you have a passion for. This is probably a healthy thing to do anyway, as it's good to have some balance in your life and make time for social activities and to keep yourself healthy.
So, in summary, give some serious thought to your longer-term plan of where you are going and how you are going to get there. Simply succumbing to the immediate burning desire to study Math and CS might not be the most effective way to realize your long term goals. Unfortunately, the education system has to cater for a very wide range of students and it's not always possible for it to be tailored perfectly for every individual. So, keep an eye on the longer term plan, so that even if you end up spending a year or two doing things that you would ideally not be doing, at least you know they are helping you work towards those goals. As you progress further in the education system, you will find you get more control and say over what subjects you study.
Good luck!

Depending what school and what program, maybe they want "well rounded" and maybe they want Sheldon Cooper.

@puppetsock it's possible, but I would recommend the OP verifies what their target college is looking for, before they choose to neglect other courses.


text:
How to learn about a department's culture?
I recently interviewed for a teaching position, but I have concerns about the department's culture. First, I learned that the department adopted a different hiring process for me. They made me jump through some hoops, but then they fell off the face of the earth. I haven't heard anything for 20 days!  Second, I learned that the department is in desperate need of new lecturers since the newly-hired experienced faculty member (established scholar!)  who had moved across the continent to work in this department left. I want to contact the-above mentioned scholar and ask him why he left, but I don't know if that's professional. What do you suggest?

I don't see a problem with contacting him, though his reasons for leaving may not be relevant to your situation. There seem to be a lot of red flags here, but it is possible that they are false alarms.
I would send him a note saying that you are under consideration for a position at the given department and asking if he has any advice he is willing to share with you. Give a sentence about your own experience or situation (recent graduate, associate professor, or whatever). Any response will probably be useful to you in figuring out your dilemma.
However, 20 days doesn't seem terribly long and might indicate some turmoil that is being resolved. Don't jump to conclusions, but stay aware.
If you have any good feelings about any of the people you interviewed with, you might send a similar note to them. "Any advice...?"


text:
Is it worth delving deep outside my field to revise a paper?
I have a paper that got lost in the editorial pipeline for about a year due to the second reviewer dropping out and not telling anyone.  During that year, I didn't revisit the paper much; it was a short, cute project that I whipped up quickly and didn't have big connections with my main body of work.
Recently, it got accepted with what the reviewer calls minor revisions.  The revisions do not seem minor to me, however, as they would require in-depth knowledge outside my main field; furthermore, some of the questions the reviewer poses would spawn projects by themselves.
The pre-print has already been cited several times, so I know the core idea has utility and appeal in the larger community.  It has also been relatively well received when presented at conferences.  It is of course in my best interests to get the paper officially published, but is it worth delving deep outside my field to appease this reviewer?
For cultural context, let's say I do numerical methods for nonlinear PDEs, and the revisions would require a dive into machine learning literature.  Also, I'm an early-career researcher.

Is it normal to bring on a co-author during revisions?

I know of one case where a reviewer became a co-author during revisions, so it is not unheard of...

Do you have a colleague or someone else you can ask who is an expert in the field you need? It is possible that with expertise in the area the reviews are very minor and a one hour talk with the right person will enable you to do whatever the reviewer suggested. Even if some of the reviewers ideas do take a lot of work this should enable you to satisfy some of the reviewers requests and come up with a reason to not do the others. Finally, if some of the questions create new interesting projects this might be worth going into, especially with a new collaborateur.

This is a good idea, especially since lack of time is one of the biggest issues.

@artificial_moonlet: It's also likely that an expert in that field can tell you precisely which of the revisions can be easily done without much novel technical work, and which may be better listed under "Further Work".

When you get minor revisions, you should definitely go for it.
That's not that I say "go for it under any circumstance", so if you had to invest months of work, I would probably vote differently. But be aware that if you get a minor revision, you do not necessarily have to comply with all the remarks. In many cases the editor does not even send the revision back to the reviewers, but I am not sure if you can know that in advance.

In my experience as a reviewer in my field (and for this journal), I've always seen the manuscript again, even with minor revisions.  I hesitate to take the risk. :/

My experience with papers in math is different: As a referee I never got a minor revision back and as an author minor revisions went quite smoothly (mainly). If I recall correctly, the only exception to the latter was an IEEE journal.

Even if the editor does send the revised manuscript back to the referees, you do not have to comply (shudder) with all of the referee's suggestions.  Referees only recommend.  Editors decide.

This is perhaps just stating the obvious, but whether or not your paper gets published isn't up to the referee. It's up to the editor. So if you received a generally positive referee's report then you can just tell the editor that the requested revisions are outside the intended scope of the paper and decline to make them. The only way I could see this becoming an issue was if the referee's report made it seem as though your paper wasn't publishable without the requested revisions.
Added (as an extended comment to the OP in light of their comment to the above): You seem to have a very defeatist outlook about the publishing process. For starters, the referee might not be all that much more senior than you are. I referee papers all the time (and have done so since my first year post-PhD) and I won't be going up for tenure for another couple of years, for example.
Regardless, all that the referee has done is write a referee's report which ideally makes some sort of recommendation to the editor. But that's all it is. A recommendation. If you send a response to the editor explaining that you don't think that one of the changes requested is necessary, you shouldn't assume that the editor will dismiss it out of hand. They might, of course, but then again they might not. I've had maybe ten papers where I explained to the editor that I did not agree with one of the referee's comments and didn't make the requested change. Not once did this have an impact on my paper getting accepted.
Like I said in my answer, it could very well be the case that the referee doesn't think your paper is worth publishing without the requested revisions. In this case the editor might side with the referee and you should probably just make the change if you can do so in a reasonable amount of time. But if you give a thoughtful explanation why the referee's recommendation is not necessary, the editor could very well take your side. Similarly, if the editor asks the referee what they think of your comment, they might decide that while the paper would be stronger with their requested revision, it should be published even without it.
Bottom line: It's your paper. If you have an opinion about what should be included in it and what should not be, you should let the editor know and assume that they'll at least hear you out.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have definitely been defeatist-- this paper in particular has been put through the ringer, rejected twice before (once for confidently absurd reasons, but I was advised not to appeal), and then forgotten about for a year at the third journal.  I know such treatment isn't normal, but with my small sample size, I honestly didn't expect to have much power in the situation.


text:
What did Peano meant by "R. Universitate"?
In a book written by Giuseppe Peano, it is written "Prof in R. Universitate de Torino" i.e. "Prof in R. University of Turin".
I guess "R" stands for "royal" but I have no proof of that.

[EDIT: corrected adding "regia" after @MassimoOrtolano's comment].
Yes, it surely stands for regia or reale (both words mean "of the king" in Italian); that adjective was common in pre-war Italy and there are other "royal" universities around. The standard Italian form is "regia (reale) università di Torino"; Peano wrote in an unusual language.
Would this and this document be proof enough for you that it was the full name?


text:
In the AI field, is it worth it to publish a paper that gains the same results as another but with a different method?
So over the last few months, I've been working on an AI model that could classify a skin lesion as cancerous or not using only an image of the lesion. At first, I thought there's no way that I could achieve anything more than 70% accuracy but after tweaking with my program for a long while, I was able to reach an accuracy of over 95% which is definitely an improvement compared to my first tries.
The other day, I was talking to a professor at my local university whom I've written a paper with and showed him my classifier. He told me that I could write a paper on it which had never come to my mind because I believe an accuracy of 95% is not nearly good enough and the methods that I used weren't new, cutting edge methods that could have a huge impact in the AI industry.
Fast forward a couple days, I found all the papers related to classifying skin lesions using ML and DL and I actually found quite a few but they all are vastly different from my model(different hyperparameters, the different architectures, different models, etc) but the accuracy in all of them are pretty close to mine(they were all very close to 95%).
My question is, do you think it's worth it to even try and write a paper about my work or is it pointless and won't help me in the future?
P.S: I've already read a similar question but that was about research in math which is VERY different. In math, the solution is sometimes more important than the finding but I'm not sure if that's the case with AI.
By the way, I'm 14, so I'm not sure whether I can do this independently or not.
Thank you so, so much!

What do you mean by “accuracy”? Sensitivity, Specificity, positive or negative predictive value? Or something else? What you have is a diagnostic test, but a diagnostic test can’t be adequately quantified with just one number.

Just a small remark: You say you tweaked your model until you got this number. Are you aware of the dangers of overfitting? Did you make sure to have proper tests in place for that?

A general AI remark: having three different distinct models that each can classify the same data set to a $95%$ degree accuracy is inherently more valuable that having just one. It is a common strategy for real life applications to combine multiple classifiers and this often reaches a better classification rate than any of the individual models can manage.

As you say, applying well-studied tool X to well-studied problem Y and getting the expected result won't lead to a groundbreaking paper. But not every paper is revolutionary, and many such papers are published, particularly in AI. It is true that professors and other senior researchers try to avoid publishing such papers simply because they have limited time and need to invest it on higher-impact ideas. Only mid- and high-tier papers really count when calculating, for example, tenure decisions.
But you are not a professor, you are 14 and this is presumably your first long-term project. Writing something up and getting it "out there" is highly worthwhile, both so you can practice writing publications and so that you have something citeable when you apply to college and beyond. Even a low-tier publication, or putting it on the arXiv, is pretty darn impressive at your career stage.
I assume this is why your professor recommended that you write up something to publish. Either that, or he thinks the work is more significant than you realize. Since he is familiar with your work and we are not, I would defer to his advice in any case.

I would say the general answer to your question is similar in almost every research field. The method to obtain a result is very important and does justify a publication if it is new. One could argue that a new combination of known methods makes a new method.
As you stated, your methods were not new, but you applied known methods to a problem they have not been used for before. That does not exclude publication either. In my field, there are quite a few applied research journals that publish mainly this kind of research. Maybe not highest impact, but fully respected. Is there something like that is AI? Then you could go for that.
And let's be honest: A big fraction of publications is a new combination of known methods to a problem that was addressed in another way before. It is a bit like making music: You only have a few notes that you can combine to a new tune, but if is well done you will not complain about the fact that "already Mozart and Bach used those notes. Okay, they produced a different result, but it is time for an innovation."


text:
Should I include a recommendation letter in my MS applications if it is not required?
I am considering my options for further Master-level studies in Europe (the goal being to improve my PhD application down the line). To summarize, my current transcript is weak, but I may be able to get good recommendations from one or two professors or researchers. This could remove some doubts about my academic abilities, and confirm some past circumstances that explain why I didn't perform better, so I see it as quite crucial in my applications.
One university I am considering states that admissions are based on "past grades, and relevant experience (including work, research, or anything related to the field)" (paraphrasing). Unless I missed some hidden meaning, this excludes recommendation letters.
I imagine that I will be able to provide supporting documents later in the process. Should I then ask for recommendation letters and provide them anyway?
I will of course contact the university directly about this, but I would like to know if there is a more general etiquette for this situation. Do admission officers generally see a good recommendation as positive even if not specifically asked for? Can they on the contrary see it as an attempt to hide other weak points in the application?

Generally speaking, any material that is not asked for will not be considered in an application for a postgraduate degree. Admissions procedures attempt to create a level playing field for applicants as well as minimise the amount of time it takes to evaluate an application, and extras that aren't asked for are tossed in the bin. Some places may treat that material differently, but you asked for general.
Now speaking specifically, I would be surprised if you were not asked for recommendations during the admissions process. The line you posted does not preclude recommendations, rather it might reveal what elements of a recommendation letter they will pay attention to. You need to either start the admission process online and see what documents you are asked for or call the admissions office for clarification.

Thank you, that makes sense. Just by curiosity, in your experience, how uncommon is it for MS applications to not ask for recommendations? Especially, for a coursework-only MS, I imagine it would be ok for universities to base themselves on grades alone, as opposed to a PhD or research Master. Is that so rare?

@Elzo I've never heard of a taught masters programme in Europe that didn't require a recommendation. I'm based in the UK myself and all taught programmes here require at least 2 letters.


text:
Are delays and 'being stuck' normal in PhDs, and how much should I work to compensate?
I'm doing a PhD in Computer Science in France (completed 10 months out of 3 years), and I am annoyed at how slow I am to produce results.
Long story short, I have explored various potential solutions to a certain problem in Computer Vision using Deep Learning - defining the problem properly was by itself very difficult - meeting various dead-ends and delays like buggy open source code and issues to reproduce results from existing papers.
I have produced small-ish results, but I haven't got enough for a quality paper yet (e.g. CVPR). I should be close, but then I've been convinced of that for a couple months.
I work full-time on my PhD (8h-17h), with occasional 1-2h overtime. I would say I am usually quite productive although there are days it would have been more useful to stay at home sleeping. I rarely work during week-ends: it is way more efficient to test / develop the algorithms in the lab, and I am just tired. The exception is when I have something to write, which is not the case right now.
My supervisors are somewhat disappointed. On the one hand, I feel like I could  do more, like by working at home or something. It is true that in the beginning of the PhD I wasted some time by leaving work earlier at 4pm (which I kinda regret) and by exploring algorithms that were useless in hindsight. I also feel guilty if I spend my week-end binge-watching movies or playing games on my PC. On the other hand, I am also usually out of ideas or things to try and may not do something useful anyway.
I am somewhat at a loss, hence my question: how far should I go? Should I always try my hardest all the time, like when I prepared exams for engineering schools (classes préparatoires, where free time is an unknown entity)? The thing is that I just do not know how to completely solve the problem I am researching. It is very different from studying for an exam, where I know precisely what to do. If I had the solution, I'd be happy to write the paper...
I always could do something, like looking for new papers to read or studying deep learning. I also sometimes hear about people working until 2am in other labs and publishing papers after 6 months, which does not help. I do not know what I should do, and afraid of regretting my decision either way :|

What you describe seems pretty normal, except for the disappointed supervisors. But maybe your work habits are inefficient. It seems like you may be stressing time in the seat too much. If you don't take regular breaks, get enough sleep, and tend to your health, then your mind won't work efficiently. You will get stuck and pounding harder isn't the way to think deeper. Take a break regularly, especially when you get stuck. It doesn't need to be long or elaborate, but a short walk, run, or bike ride, can restore both your body and mind.
Your mind doesn't just work when you try to force it to. It actually works all the time, even when you are sleeping. Sometimes the break is what it takes for your mind to stop focusing on minutia and start to integrate what you have been looking at.
But, if you are really doing research, and not just going through the motions, then you can't schedule results. They come when they will.
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ~~Albert Einstein
Another trick is to talk to people about what you are doing. They need to have some knowledge, but if you just try to explain it you will, perhaps, come to a better understanding yourself. Some people even "talk" to a Rubber Ducky that they keep on their desk. Tell it to the Duck. But people can give you feedback.
The "dead ends" you explored may also actually be valuable, later if not now. They might actually do nothing more than provide a break from trying to push forward. And those breaks are essential.
If you do too many push-ups your muscles get saturated with lactic acid (I think I got that right) and weaken. Something similar happens with your brain. Work hard, but take breaks. For me, random breaks, rather than a schedule, works best. When I'm not being productive, do something else for a while.
But if your breaks take you away from your desk as they should, you can also carry a few note cards, including blank ones. You can use these to remind yourself of partially formed ideas and capture new ones if they occur during exercise. Don't force yourself to work on a break, but have them ready to capture any serendipitous thoughts.