text:
What are the special measures to be taken into account by a lecturer in +100-student classes?
What special measures does one take into account to deliver lectures in classes including +100 students (compared to those of less-crowded classes)?

What sort of TA support do you have? Is this your only teaching assignment or are there others as well?

@Buffy: Lets say a team of 3 TA's, and there are further assignments, as well.

Delivering lectures is the easy part. Did you really mean to only ask about the lectures, or about the entire teaching of the course?

An interesting note: in some countries, such large classes are straight up illegal - the rationale is that the teacher would be unable to give each student appropriated attention if they have to look after so many of them. Brazil is one example - the "general" limit is 60 students for college, with some states or courses further limiting it. Law classes only accept up to 50 students. CS accepts up to 30, and so on. Some colleges here and there don't obey those limits, but they are a thing.

Which country/type of institution? Expectations might differ between a class at an Italian university rather than at a private US college

With 3 TAs you have a reasonable staff/student ratio. You need to use that staff to address the challenges a larger class size brings.
One of the main challenges is that the likely range of skills in the students is wider, meaning that if you want to afford an equal opportunity to everyone you need to work on making the process better for the strugglers who are willing but less prepared.
You also need to assure that marking of assignments and feedback are uniform over the class. In particular you need to produce detailed grading rubrics for everyone doing grading and you need to monitor the output of the TAs.
Keep in close contact with the TAs, with regular meetings in which they can bring you problems that need to be addressed.
Do some of the marking yourself, or, maybe just review the marks and (more important) comments that the TAs provide, perhaps by cycling through reviewing each TAs work periodically.
Lectures will be harder to manage if questions from students are to be considered. You might consider providing notes to students prior to lectures and a way for questions to be asked online so that lectures are more effective.
You might even want to think about the Flipped Classroom concept making face time an exercise lab with the TAs assisting the students.
In some fields, like CS, having students work in pairs can be effective as can group work with larger groups (say 3-5 students).

From a passerby from HNQ: I'm not sure how viable it is, but one of my lecturers had both mid-terms and final exams graded such that each TA graded one specific question, instead of the group they taught. This did increase the logistics somewhat (making us take the exam in the early evening due to room requirements), but did strike me as going out of her way to ensure fairness. That said, this particular professor wasn't well liked by the student body, so it might have been a CYA as well.

@jaskij, we regularly did that when I was a TA (for finals). Grading was actually done all together in a big room so that the prof could give advice as needed.

In my experience, a key thing about teaching larger classes is to keep in mind the scaling of workloads for different things. E.g. the time needed to prepare and give a lecture is more or less independent of the number of students, while the time needed to correct homework grows linearly.
This might seem somewhat obvious, but there are some aspects of giving a class that one tends to forget about, like all the organization that has to be done. If say on average one in twenty students sends you an email with organizatorial questions each week, that is barely noticeable in a small class, but if you are dealing with several hundred students that can result in multiple hours of work per week.
Part of this simply needs to be taken into account, but often there are several ways of doing things that scale differently. Stuff like preparing good lecture notes is constant in the number of students, but linear in the number of reduced questions. Similarly on the organizatorial side, a good FAQ and precisely worded instructions can work wonders. This will not stop some people from asking stupid questions, but at least it allows you to just point them a the information instead of having to repeat it in full.
Finally, keep in mind that TAs are not just additional working hours for tasks, but that they need to be managed as well. Most are highly capable individuals, but you will need to check in on them from time to time in order to make sure that things are on the right track. Also, while I am not a fan of hierarchies, keep in mind that discussion is the one thing where time spent can grow quadratically in the number of participants. So don't be afraid of telling your TAs how things should be done (e.g. by a precise grading rubric). You should still listen to their feedback of course, but sometimes a quick suboptimal decision is better than endless discussion about minor details.
In particular the latter might not be too much of a problem with your example of around 100 students and 3 TAs, but I have seen classes of "Math for everybody" with 1000+ students and 15+ TAs, where organizing in itself was more or less a full-time job for one post-doc and each exam was a logistical masterpiece, taking weeks of preparation.

To flesh out that 3rd para, the 2 guys who weren't paying attention the one time you annoed a quiz is now 10. Post everything a little more in advance, check a little more for your mistakes. and say "remember we have..." more frequently.

@OwenReynolds Sorry, the one time you did what to a quiz?

@MishaLavrov if i were to guess, announced a quiz

The other answers cover the most important stuff, I think, but haven't touched (much) on the classroom component of the course (I'm assuming this course is being delivered in-person ...)  @Buffy mentions lecture management, but here's some more detail.

the lecture room will be a lot bigger, you'll need to carefully consider visibility/legibility of materials. Working on a blackboard (if you're in a discipline that does this) probably won't be feasible any more, you'll most likely need to work with a document camera or write on a tablet that's connected to the A/V system or write on a touchscreen if one is provided. Figure out your presentation technology and visit the classroom in advance to work out the details. You should also figure out where the light switches are, how they work, and what the best setting(s) are.
Student engagement gets harder. Clicker/polling questions definitely come into their own for large classes. Find out what system(s) your institution use(s) — are students already buying clickers for another course? Systems like PollEverywhere are phone/tablet/laptop-accessible, but also require payment [either from students or from the institution]. "Think-pair-share" approaches can work, with students working with whoever happens to be sitting near them and reporting results via clicker. There are no/low-tech approaches as well — these approaches were originally developed by Eric Mazur using coloured cards students could hold up — but the technology-assisted versions work well, can allow you to assign low-stakes credit for answering questions, etc..

If the course is online, there's a whole other set of presentation-scaling issues to consider ...

Will whatever online system you're using to present (Echo360, Teams, Zoom, WebEx, ...?) handle your class size gracefully? (There was a minor disaster at my university on the first day of fall 2021 [I think] when instructors realized that the university's Teams license didn't cover >1000 students in a meeting.)
do you have your system locked down to avoid outsiders crashing your class, or disruptive students within your class? (This can be an issue for smaller classes but gets much worse for larger ones.)
Do you have a TA moderating the chat/question-and-answer channel?

All of the issues raised by other answers about "if you have one problem student in a class of 20 you will have 5 problem students in a class of 100 and 50 problem students in a class of 1000" apply here, but now you have to manage the problem students remotely ...

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "presentation-scaling issues" (in the last sentence)?

Your lecture should be thoroughly prepared, no matter what size the audience is.
Your writing should be visible to all. A digital overhead projector is better than a blackboard. Plus, it can be recorded along with your audio.
Your voice should be clearly audible to all.
Dealing with disruptive students is the hardest part. Even just sustained whispering among a small bunch of students will significantly degrade the experience for the rest of the room, but addressing the offenders can easily end up with them filing a spurious complaint against you.

The points about recording and audibility are good (you should almost always use a microphone in a large lecture hall, even if you don't think you need one). I'm surprised that you would need to fear reprisal from disruptive students who had been called out, but maybe that's just my position and point of view.


text:
Should I really acknowledge funding from an unrelated project?
I am postdoc working at a university, and I was hired by the PI of a specific project, let us call it Project X.
Apart from working on Project X, when time permits I like to concentrate on my own research, and from time to time I end up writing a paper.  Now I have a doubt. If I write a paper that is completely unrelated to Project X, should I still acknowledge funding from Project X?
According to the head of my research group, who formally is my boss, I should do so. However, the answer to this previous post claimed otherwise.
What is the correct way to move forward? Should I simply accept the boss recommendation, or should I instead ask the funding agency directly? I am hesitant to accept because Project X has a very explanatory title and so it would be evident to the reader that it is unrelated to my paper.
I know that some journals have specific guidelines about this. But the problems comes even before proper publication, if one wants to submit a preprint on arXiv.
Thanks in advance for your input.
EDIT. Perhaps "completely unrelated" is too severe a judgment. Certainly the paper lies within the same discipline (mathematics); it deals with some theoretical aspects while the project is applied.

Does this answer your question? Should I acknowledge funding from an unrelated project?

@Sursula-they- I have cited that post myself in my question. So the answer is no.

@Sursula-they- Note that journals' policies tend to define the minimum set of funding sources that must be acknowledged, rather than setting the maximum. This is because they are concerned about potential conflicts of interest. This is obvious in the PLOS policy https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/disclosure-of-funding-sources that is mentioned in a comment to the linked question: they talk about "transparency", "Company Sponsored Medical Research" and funding by tobacco companies.

What do you mean by "when time permits"? Is there a set amount of hours per day/week/month that you are expected to work on Project X, and is your personal research undertaken during those hours or outside of them? That seems highly pertinent.

Did you work on the paper while on the clock with funding from project X?

Part of the issue is that "on the clock" is difficult to define in a world where salary is allocated via "percent effort" rather than clock time. If you work 9am-5pm on X and 6-9pm on Y, X is formally getting less effort than if you worked 9am-4pm on X and 4-5pm on Y. (Agree this makes no sense but...)

This doesn't really apply to pure mathematics, but in some other fields a lack of declared funding source might be suspicious; e.g. a paper critical of some piece of climate science which discloses funding from a reputable body, is probably more credible than the same paper with no disclosed funding source, because the latter might have been paid for by an oil company who prefer the arrangement not to be disclosed. Disclosing who pays your salary, even if the reason they pay your salary is unrelated to the particular paper, helps people judge whether the funding creates a conflict of interest.

@kaya3: I'd have said that your example is a lack of declaring a potential conflict of interest

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX Agreed, but if you look at the link to the PLOS policy in my comment, you can see how the two issues are often considered related

It is simple:
If project X is paying for your (entire) salary, then you need to acknowledge project X in any publication you write. More generally, you need to acknowledge project X in any publication that has used resources from project X.
For as far as there are any ethical issues, these occurred when you decided to use resources from project X (your time) for work that is completely unrelated (in your words) to project X. For the record I don't think there is much of an ethical issue though, since it is generally understood that project members do some work that is at best tangentially related to the main goals of the project.

I don't think one must acknowledge the project in any publication.  It is as you say in the next paragraph, you need to acknowledge the project in any publication that is tangentially related to the project, or at least ask the PI of the grant what to do.  We can have a hobby, and that hobby might lead to a publication, I would think.

@TerryLoring How related the work is to the project is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if the project paid for your time.

Isn't this dependent on whether or not you worked on your personal research during "Working hours"? If you are doing independent research on weekends, using resources that are completely separate from resources provided by/for Project X, then I wouldn't think Project X needs any mention.
Project X is not entitled to 100% of your waking hours or productive output just because they pay your weekday 9-5 salary.

I feel like @wakey's point is extremely important. Suppose someone was employed at IBM, and in their non-working hours performed research which led to a paper; should IBM be credited as providing support? Suppose someone was working as a clerk at a gas station, or (it could happen!) in a Swiss patent office; would the employer deserve credit then?

@wakey In principle yes. However, in practice academic working hours don't work in such a way that such a distinction can be cleanly made. In such a rare edge case where the distinction can be made, you should also not publish under your university affiliation.

@randomhead It is actually quite common for tech companies to stipulate in their employment contracts that the company owns all the IP generated while the employee is employed there. (It is also quite common for employees to ask to have such clauses removed from their contract before signing.)

@wakey: The OP may want to clarify, but based on the explanation "I am postdoc working at a university, and I was hired by the PI of a specific project, let us call it Project X. Apart from working on Project X, when time permits I like to concentrate on my own research", I took it for granted that we are talking exclusively about the time that counts as "working at a university".

If its appropriate the use the university affiliation, its probably also appropriate to acknowledge a funding source. However, if the topic is so unrelated that the funding agency, or reviewer might rise questions why funding was used to work on an inappropriate topic, then better don't do it. But if the research is even slightly tangential related to the project X that payed full or part of your salary: Whats the disadvantage of acknowledging it? Really i would suggest to be a bit more like John Cleese and be flexible thanking or acknowledging people or funding agencies almost never hurts. I could very well imagine that funding agencies, use web-crawlers and keep stats counting the output of those who receive the funding and possibly even of those receiving funding salaries.

No, because the funding agency will use these acknowledgments to analyze a project, it will be confusing if you acknowledge an unrelated project

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What Does 'S' Stand for in a Research Report?
I'm reading a research report. I encountered several times 'S' which I don't know what it stands for.
Examples:
'The first directions to S were as follows.'
'After the record was played, S was asked to grade the music as a whole on a four-point scale.'
It's a study about musical humor and 30 college students were the subjects.

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/178412/68109

In the paper you have quoted, S stands for a noun, probably Subject but possibly Student, and not a specific name like Stephen or Sally. This is evidenced by its use in the plural:

The Ständchen was chosen for the purpose of detecting a bias in our Ss toward finding humor... (p. 560)

And with a qualifier:

Every S observed separately and in two sessions. (p. 560)

And with an article:

If, upon being questioned an S was found to be already familiar with a given composition... (p. 561)

The paper does not explicitly say "S is for Subject," but first paragraph of the Method and procedure section starts out (emphasis mine):

Thirty Sweet Briar College students recommended as 'musical' were subjects in our study. (p. 560)

Source:
Mull, H. K. (1949). A Study of Humor in Music. The American Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 560–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/1418560

This is most likely a stand-in for a name to preserve anonymity. It is, perhaps, an initial of one of the subjects, perhaps standing for something like "Stephen" or "Sally".
It is fairly common usage. It actually helps the author keep track of things, but doesn't reveal the names of research subjects.

I believe it is a stand-in for 'Subject', but I can't point to any evidence in support of this...

I also guessed S for "subject".

@avid, that is possible, but there is no reason not to spell out "subject". Also, I'd expect it to appear followed by a number, say S5, to distinguish subjects.

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


text:
After Nikita Den Haag, should graduate schools consider also asking for peer-student references?
Some of you may have seen this story and the associated Tweet from this infiltrator's professor - who was an unwitting author of a strong letter of recommendation for him to the ICC at The Hague.
Basically, a Russian intelligence operative had a false Brazilian identity and school record created for him by his organization. He used this to gain entrance to one respectable university for his primary degree; then used the latter to gain entrance to a top-rank graduate school of international affairs; and finally used his MA from the latter plus a "strong" letter of recommendation from an unwitting professor there to seek an internship at the ICC at The Hague - just as it starts to consider Russian actions in Ukraine.
I see no reason for Professor Finkel to feel too bad about this as he was dealing with an otherwise competent student - who just happened to have an organization creating an effective cover for him. We pay professors to teach and research, to spread enlightenment and cultivate good learning - not to suss out spies, which is the NSA's job.
But maybe after this event - which must be an embarrassment to Trinity College, Dublin and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies - we might be a little more inclined to explore some more non-traditional candidate supplementary evaluations for graduate school. Like references from fellow undergraduates for example. These would tend to show genuineness in the candidate's character, helpfulness, teamwork and "going the extra mile". These qualities do matter in a research group and will not be noticed much by undergraduate professors as they do not see these interactions at first hand. I realize that the dangers of small sample sizes apply here of course. Nearly everyone in a class of > 100 will have a few friends and a few enemies - and a lot they have little to do with either way due to the alphabetical ordering for class groups, social class adhesion and so on. But notes from say 2 girls and 2 guys saying X was always willing to help a student really stuck, this has to mean something to supervisors who seek interpersonal skills and virtues among their research group members.
How do academics here - I address academics globally, not just the US academia - feel about giving some weight to peer-referees of candidates also rather than solely tutor's letters and interviews by a PG Dean and the putative studies supervisor ?

Regarding the sentence "I address academics globally, not just the US academia" it's worth mentioning that in some parts of the world letters of recommendation are not that much of a thing, so in those places there's also no point in trying to replace the (hardly existent) letter writers with undergraduates.

@Jochen Is that the case in your state?

Yes, indeed. I live and work in Germany. I've applied for quite a number of positions (maybe 20 or so) within Germany during the last few years, and I think only for one of them I was asked to submit letters of recommendation. For some - but far from all - funding opportunities in Germany, LoRs are more relevant, but for faculty positions they have very little relevance.

Well, I was thinking of demands on you by students to write academic references for their job applications. This is what Nikita got from Prof Finkel and perhaps others in TCD. Quite a few graduate and postgraduate employers ask for this sort of academic referee letter in the lead-up to a job offer decision.

Independently of other problems with that proposal, I don't see how this would in any way be a solution to the original (IMHO rather unimportant) problem. If anything, I would expect a spy being more helpful and focused on teamwork, as any friend made in such a rather focused university-program has a reasonable chance to later end up in an important position and could thus become an exploitable source of inside information.

@mik  I am not putting this forward as a solution to espionage embarrassment. The only solution to that is to have state security procedures be more thorough. I am putting this forward as an improvement to the existing graduate school selection processes. Several contributors have commented other threads on the importance of teamwork, helping other researchers with an area of weakness, guiding younger researchers, etc as a criterion for a desirable postgrad candidate.

OK thanks, but I don't see the jump from "Russian spy" to "peer recommendations." Are we supposed to be better at sussing out imposters than professors?

The spy newspaper story (linked, if you want to read it) illustrates how classmates have a far better window on a student's character than any professor. How wise is it to provide training at an advanced international studies school to someone whose own social contact is so limited, spy or not a spy ? That's my point. And perhaps graduate school selection procedures should start to include more than just the purely academic qualifications. But please don't feel under any obligation to answer my question on the point if you simply don't care to.

First, let's not change a whole system of how we write letters of reference just because "there once was this one case". Letters of reference are written for what must surely be hundreds of thousands of cases each year, and the number of Russian spies among them is such a small fraction that I don't think it's worth changing the system for them.
Second, letters of recommendations from professors work because the letter writers put their reputation on the line when they do so. You can't write a good letter for a bad student because you're writing to your friends and colleagues, and they will be mad at you. You will hear about it at conferences and get-togethers, and it tarnishes your standing in your community. But if a student picks four other students to write for them, who cares? These students have nothing to gain from being truthful as in all likelihood they will graduate and move into industry. They can never be called out. As a consequence, there is no reason to give such letters any weight.
Finally, letters are only useful if the letter writers know the system. Professors are reasonable evaluators because they will have seen lots of letters and know what they need to address. Students haven't, and as a consequence they neither know what to say, nor how to say it.

I once wrote a good letter for a good student who did miserably in a doctoral program. But, I didn't know that he was dying of AIDS at the time. Sad story of course, but I had to explain things to those who received the letter.

@Wolfgang  I suggested references from a few students on the candidate's soft skills, helpfulness to other students, etc. Not on his/her academic capabilities.

@Trunk I did not actually say that the students had to comment on someone's academic capabilities. But whatever the criteria are, inexperienced writers will not know what to say.

@Wolfgang  Let's not get into a hair-splitting task here. My basic point is that even in academia one needs to consider attributes that relate more to character than actual work skills or even the extent of work output: it's a collegial environment and selection processes of today's academia ought to do more than simply appreciate this as something desirable - they should also seek to evaluate soft skills of grad school candidates and give this some weight IMHO. But I naturally seek other people's views on this matter, something the spy story has obliquely illuminated.

@Trunk I don't disagree that these are worthwhile criteria to consider. I just disagree that fellow students are qualified to evaluate those.

I accept that the testimony (quoted in the OP article) of the 2 students in Muller Ferreira's class is suspect as it is after a major news story broke. We all remember students at college who "always thought this other student X was a bit weird" - but never actually said so till after X committed some crime. But that's human character - something people of 22 aren't old enough to be sure of. Yet students can reasonably evaluate the student character of fellow-students as they are engaging (or not, VMF's case) with classmates for 4 years. Q1: Know if any any pilot study been done on this ?

@Trunk The point I'm making is that if a candidate chooses two other students (presumably his friends), then (i) that's not a representative choice of fellow students, (ii) these students could be asked a questionnaire, but would almost certainly not be able to write a reasonable letter, (iii) they're not neutral evaluators because they are friends of the candidate and don't have "skin in the game" because their reputation isn't on the line. -- -- What you are proposing in your last comment here is to do a representative survey of the candidate's fellow students, but that is just not feasible.

Yes. There are many perils with this. Not least the subjectivity of each student's character valuations; they'll hardly criticize another student for lack of a virtue they don't have themselves or praise one for a strength they do not yet realize is important and/or rare. Then there is the question of what is "normal" or "adequate". What is common in college campuses - vanity, attention-seeking, NPD, apathy, selfishness, etc - would not be acceptable elsewhere.


text:
Two different papers with different subjects but same experimental data. How should we behave?
We submitted a paper, which is mostly experimental, to a Q1 journal. We did experiments with three different techniques. Considering this, we finished another paper which is totally different in subject than the first one. The second one is not an experimental work at all. However, in order to verify our numerical model, we validated it with the experimental results we obtained before and then continue to apply our model in the new paper with the numerical results. We send the second paper to a journal and they ask for more details on the experimental works. Can we add the previous experiments with paraphrase while they have not been published yet? If published, we can cite but I am not sure exactly what we should do. We cannot wait for the first paper to be published.

Why can you not wait until the first paper is published?

Do you expect the first paper to be published where first submitted? Do you have feedback on that?

No it is in anither journal. Not feedback yet

By "subjects," do you mean people?

No. Subject means scientific subjects! Yes people are also different. I mean one of them is included

Have you considered uploading the first paper to a preprint server?

I thought about it. Could we put it in preprint and then cite it? Maybe the first journal is against about it. Unfortunately there is no source about these things and the editors normally do not answer

Yes, you can cite a paper that is available as a preprint (although some consider it to be a "low quality citation" because of the missing peer review, but better than none at all). Try to check on the journals homepage if they have a preprint policy or see if you can find preprints of other papers published in the journal.

The issue is how the first journal behave if we put that in preprint

You should provide this question in a revised form as an explanation to the editor of the second paper. You might also want to provide a copy of the first paper, explaining where it is in the editorial process and point out the differences.
From what you say, there is no reason at all NOT to reuse your experimental data.
Depending on the discipline, inclusiveness is a virtue for a paper, meaning that you might actually be justified in republishing your data.

"You might also want to provide a copy of the first paper"  This probably should have been done with the initial submission of the second paper; an apology for not providing it previously might be appropriate.

In many such situations you can use the delay in publication to your advantage. Note that very few papers are published exactly as first submitted, so you have some leeway.
In the second paper you can "cite" the first informally as a submitted work with formal citation to be substituted later. If the first paper is subsequently published before the second is finalized you just make the substitution.
But to make this work you probably need to have some assurance from the first journal that you will get published. So this works best if there is some delay in submitting the second after submitting the first. This might not apply in your case, I realize.
And, to satisfy the reviewers of the second paper you may need to make the first paper available to them. The editor will give advice on this.

This is just an auxiliary caution:
Nature.com's Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers describes Elisabeth Bik and the "phenomenon" of inappropriate data reuse.
What you describe does not seem at all inappropriate, but since Elisabeth Bik's work has become so famous in some fields (e.g. Biology) it's important to be very clear both to your editor & reviewers (and to your future readers) that you're not representing the same data twice as if it were two different experiments, lest someone assumes the worst and gives you a hard time or otherwise delays the publication process.
The other answers already offer some good strategies to do so, here I'm just highlighting some potential problems if you don't heed their recommendations.


text:
Should I tell my supervisor about my upcoming paper?
I'm doing a PhD on theoretical physics.
The last months, I'm working on a paper that my supervisor is not aware of. I'm now finishing the paper. The idea of the paper is closely related to my PhD thesis and previous research papers that I have written with my supervisor and colleagues.
My question is that I do not know if I should tell my supervisor about this paper.
I understand that I have been helped from our collaboration. However for all of the papers that I have written, I have done most (basically ALL) of the hard part, being the calculations in my case, and I have discussed the physics as well as writing the whole paper. My advisor did not help me at all with that. In all of my published work, my advisor contributed with comments and suggestions and I was okay with that, as long as I am the first author.
The fact is that I cannot stand this situation any more. All of the papers are my work and my work only. If someone comments on my work, I will very kindly include that person on the acknowledgement section. I would like to be the single author if I am actually the single author.
I do not know however if this will irritate my advisor.
Has anyone else faced the same scenario?
Edit:
After reading all these comments and suggestions, I'm going to add some more information about what the situation is exactly.

There is no funding for my research. I do not get paid for what i do. I do other jobs in order to make ends meet, that have nothing to do with academia/research. Research (for me) is a side project that comes with sleep deprivation/low social activity, etc. It is still worth the struggle in my opinion.
In all previous articles, my advisor's name comes next to mine.
For the paper that I asked this question about, the advisor is not involved in any way. Or is involved as involved are any of the colleagues/people that I had conversations with in the past about something similar. The idea, execution, writing, explanation are all mine.

This is an odd, unhealthy, and toxic way to approach writing papers and being mentored. Why have you been hiding this paper? Do you feel like you've been mistreated by your PI?

I have the feeling that if i tell my supervisor about this, the supervisor will ask for the files of the paper, make some changer here and there and add her/his name.

Again, why? That's not normal conduct. However, I am not in physics, I am in a field where the advisor's contribution to being able to conduct the study merits authorship

There was no reason to inform my supervisor. I got some time to work on the idea and solved all the problems that came across by myself.

@AzorAhai-him- you might not relate. Thats why i added my field of research. It is like that you're writing a paper on your field, we have a chat about it for 3-4 hours and i read the paper. I suggest some changes and make some comments on the paper. Would you like to include my name as a co-author?

Okay, but has your supervisor inappropriately inserted themself before?

Put yourself in the position of your professor. You have a student that you have mentored and collaborated with on several papers, and yes all the hard work may have been done by the student, but so what? Then the student starts writing papers on the same subject and you are not even aware of that? How would that make you feel? You (= @ApolloRa) should have a conversation with your professor and apologise for this. Whether or not he wants to change things and become co-author is not the main issue. Restoring the broken trust is the issue.

In my experience, it is typical in physics for the first author to do a majority of the work, and the last author to serve in a supervisory role. The supervisor might check results, or suggest research directions, or offer insight when the project is stuck. But they are certainly not expected to get their hands dirty with detailed calculations or programming. This is generally recognized, so your supervisor adding themselves on as a last author will not give others a mistaken impression of who contributed to a project.

I'll also add that an advisor being "hands off" is not (necessarily) a bad thing. In many cases, your advisor may be able to solve the calculation you are working on much faster than you, but they are allowing you to solve it yourself so that you both grow as a researcher and legitimately earn the first-author position on a paper.

Finally, if you are concerned about clearly dividing credit, many journals encourage or require an "author contributions" section which explains the role of each author. See, e.g., any Nature portfolio journal.

Thank you so so much for your comments. If you like please make them an answer so i can formally upvote your suggestion. I didn't knew that "it is typical in physics for the first author to do a majority of the work, and the last author to serve in a supervisory role". I though that this is a combination of the first letter of my name and my contribution.

In many cases the student does the hard work, the calculations, and has a good paper. The supervisor doesn't do anything for the paper. Of course, if you open their desk drawer you might find that they had already done the calculations beforehand to make sure it all worked, and to know whether the student did it properly. Certainly in pure mathematics you don't set a student working on something unless you already know it'll work out beforehand. I made that mistake once and the student got stuck at the place I got to before deciding it should work and to give to my student to finish off.

@DavidA.Craven thank you for taking the time to comment!!! My case is a bit different. The idea, the calculations, the writing of the paper and all explanations are made by myself. Noone helped. Reading all the comments, i understand that i have to share that i'm working on this paper and even include their name just for diplomatic reasons. At the end of the day it is what it is.

@ApolloRa It's very political and subject-dependent, and it's difficult to know when outside your field, and it might also be difficult as a PhD student. I should point out that I am not on my students' papers, even in those cases when I have told them what to prove, and have already proved it in the drawer.

@ApolloRa to be clear, if you did the work without any help and came up with the research question without your advisor’s input, you’re perfectly within your rights to want to be the only author (although you should consider whether letting your supervisor help would improve the paper). My comments were meant to address your resentment towards your supervisor for not doing more work on previous projects, which I think is misplaced.

@ApolloRa - While I appreciate your last edit, I do want to encourage you to consider that the answers below are still relevant despite this new information. Said again, I think all the three points you outlined were already factored in to the below answers.

@eykanal there has been an answer about funding and that is why i made the last edit. Most answers are relevant, and i think that will make the right decision with the help from all these people.

Yes, have your advisor review the paper.  Then if your advisor wants, I typically would suggest including your advisor as a co-author.  My advisor typically allowed students to be first authors, in cases where that was merited.

Before the OP deleted his/her profile, s/he added a comment saying "If they decide to add their name, i cannot do anything. For me this is slavery, but there is no other option". OP, you really have all this terribly wrong. And I am a person who had two horrible advisors. Your advisor going through your papers checking for errors and (hopefully) giving feedback, means they are doing their job. As about being left on your own for most of the time, this is unftly one real problem in theor. physics PhDs. It is wrong and unfair. But you aren't gaining anything by insisting on a solo publication.

I would like to be the single author if i am actually the single author.
I do not know however if this will piss my advisor off.
Has anyone had faced the same scenario?

Yes, many people have shared this scenario. Usually, in my humble opinion, it is based on unjustified entitlement students have, and possessive and envious emotions humans have in general. The reason I say they are unjustified in general is that unless your paper is a groundbreaking piece of science that will be remembered for eternity of ages, there is almost practically no reason to insist on being the "single" author. If you feel emotionally incapable of gifting your supervisor papers that you feel he/she hasn't contributed enough to, you should start in my opinion by letting them know you are not happy with their supervision or demand to be included as co-authors. Of course, this will offend the supervisor, and may risk completely ruining your relationship with them, because like you, they have emotions of possessiveness and jealousy.
EDIT: Following the comments, I add this simple practical advice:
I think that in your case, for practical reasons, you can tell your supervisor that for this specific work you might want to have a single authorship because it will be nice to show you're an independent researcher. If you say that nicely and gently it may be okay and won't hurt much your relationship, but convey the boundary of your relationship in the future.

If you feel emotionally incapable of gifting your supervisor papers that you feel he/she hasn't contributed enough to, you should start in my humble opinion by letting them know you are not happy with their supervision or demand to be included as co-authors.
THIS IS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL.
So what is your suggestion? Is there any way that i can say this kindly enough to not ruin the relationship?

Yes, I think you can tell them simply that for this specific work you might want to have a single authorship because it will be nice to show you're an independent researcher. If you say that nicely and gently it may be okay.

This may depend a bit by field. In some fields, single-author papers count much more than jointly-authored papers when it comes to finding another position.

@cag51, the field is physics. And it is almost always the case that good social-emotional connection to people trumpets 'objective' measures, to some extent at least.

Purely in terms of academic integrity you shouldn't be "gifting" anyone authorship of papers for any reason. If you're an author on a paper you should have made a substantial contribution to it! Simply being the supervisor of the person who wrote it, IMHO, doesn't meet that criteria if you had nothing to do with a specific paper.

@ScottishTapWater the fact is that it seems that there is no specific right answer. Everyone has their opinion. Most of the people agree that communicating of working on the paper is necessary. I will do so, but i don't know what to do in the case, they add their name.

As the only author, you'll be the corresponding author... Just submit it without their name... They can't intercept it and force you to add it. If they try to... Find a new supervisor

@ApolloRa I'd say accept it and move on. Even if they get added as last author, the paper will still be considered as "your" paper and not your supervisor's paper by everyone who reads it, as long as the author contributions section is filled out properly. The more important thing is to have a paper, than to have none. Also, consider that many (most) journals would be more confident accepting a manuscript from a reputable source (e.g. your supervisor as last author, given their previous publication record), than when it is just you (even if you have prior publications)

-1 Everything about this answer is wrong. No one should get authorship unless they actually meet the criterion of the authorship (usually a substantial scientific contribution, which is a bit subjective). In my view, having a single author paper on their CV might look good for them in future (showing that they can do independent work). The idea that it would only matter if it's groundbreaking work is wrong. If my student wanted to write a single author paper, I would be okay with it as long as it didn't detract from their major responsibilities (making progress on grants that support them).

I don't think the meaningful question is about gifting the supervisor authorship on a paper that they didn't make a "substantial contribution" to (which is unethical in its own right). I think the meaningful question is about why you would be opposed to the supervisor contributing to the paper in the first place.

(Cont.) I can totally understand how it might happen that the supervisor cannot contribute (too busy, out of their area, etc.), but I would still want to offer early in the development of the paper and happily grant the authorship if they did contribute. This distinction about whether the research is groundbreaking seems irrelevant to me.

As I said before, I didn't need the help of my supervisor. I came up with the idea, worked on it, solved all the problems that came across by myself and now the paper is almost ready. I think that having a paper as a single author is quite something and if I can make it, why risk having a coauthor?

First, "having a paper as a single author is quite something" is a lot less true than you probably think it is.  Second, my question isn't really about the present. In the present, ostensibly there is little left for your supervisor to contribute to this project so they shouldn't be an author. My question is really about the past: why did you act this way in the first place?

Because i think that there is no actual contribution from my advisor, except from the first paper we wrote. The papers that followed were just me sending drafts of new ideas to the advisor. The advisor neither made any illuminating comment, nor any other contribution. They just said, ok that's good, work further. I once made a big mistake and the paper had to be re-written from scratch, the advisor "worked" on the project for some time and never said anything.

I was close to submiting and we decided to further share the work with other colleagues. They, actually working on the paper, found the error and informed us. So i though, why do i have to share it in the first place if there's no actual help by their side?

That information about what your supervisor did in response to you giving them documents earlier is relevant in a way that should be in the question, IMO.

I decided to share the document and stand my ground on authorship as politely as i can. If they decide to add their name, i cannot do anything. For me this is slavery, but there is no other option. There's nothing to be said anymore, this is eventually an ethics of authorship problem and having a problematic supervisor. Reading comments of professors here, i think that this is the way to go. Having good relationships with the professor is important. My advisor is really a nice guy, i think that they are just kind of bored working with students/or in general.

@ScottishTapWater, I didn't say they gift papers to their supervisor. I said that they feel as if they do. (In my opinion, falsely so.)

Not sure about physics but in many other fields, it is very natural to have some solo-authored papers during PhD years. My advisor is super busy with huge piles of papers on his desk, and is usually reluctant to have too much collaboration and discussion with advisees beyond his advising obligation.
I personally prefer collaboration, but this is what I will do if I badly want a solo author paper:

During casual chatting with my advisor, say: "I recently wrote down some new findings and would like to submit a paper soon, it is about XYZ"

If my advisor is interested, I will ask if he has a bit time to skim through the paper. If he is not interested, I will continue the chat with topics that he has been interested in, and submit the paper by myself.

If he agrees to read the paper, I will put my paper on his piles with my own name on it.

If he indeed reads the paper and gets back to me with a lot of enthusiastic suggestions and deep ideas, then we will usual have a long, formal discussion on how this project will be proceed. We will discuss questions like "shall we split the ideas into multiple papers", "shall we invite more collaborators", "how should the works to be split if you agree to coauthor", "what are the next steps". In this case, the benefits of incorporating his contribution out-weight the benefits of solo-authoring almost surely.

If he is not interested enough to actually read the paper or he only provides some generic comments that are easy to deal with, then, after polishing the paper, I will send him a final version and ask him if he is fine with me just submit it as it. If this happens, my advisor never demanded to put his name onto the paper.

Re: does a student have the right to publish independently when the advisor makes no contribution?
In my humble opinion, if supervisors insist to add their name onto a paper that they made no contribution, then, another complicated question is involved: what count as contribution?
In (rare) case people believe providing research fund, supplying data, providing experimental instruments count as contribution, then the supervisors contributed to the paper and naturally have the rights of putting names on it.
If the PhD student is funded by department or outside scholarships, and the student did not use any resources or facilities provided by the supervisor, and the supervisor has no other contribution, then, adding their name is not very ethical in my opinion.

Thank you so much for your answer! It is really helpful!

This answer shows skill in handling men in authority over you. But it doesn't really confront the main issue here, the "right" of OP to publish independently of his supervisor when the latter makes no contribution to the published work.

If people believe that providing research fund, supplying data, providing experimental instruments count as contribution, – You might want to add that, while there are certainly people who believe this, these things do not count according to common authorship ethics.

Yes, you should probably, almost certainly, tell them. It is courteous, if nothing else, to do so and the issue of whether they want to be, or should be, co-authors is completely separate from that. There is also the issue of whether having them (and their implied reputation) as a co-author could benefit you (or not).
I'd guess that the supervisor shares things with you and it might leave you pretty stuck if they never did and refused to.
But beyond that, it seems like you are putting yourself into a very small box in a field in which wide collaboration can be very beneficial. Some people can work alone and be productive, but even Einstein corresponded with and shared ideas with a fairly wide set of people. This was true before he earned his doctorate as well and was helpful in developing Special Relativity (at least).
The standards for who should be a co author are fairly clear and, yes, often abused, but you haven't indicated that. Asking whether they should be is quite different from insisting on it and threatening retaliation otherwise, which sometimes happens. "Suggesting improvements" can merit either an acknowledgement or co-authorship depending on how it impacts the intellectual contribution of the paper.

Thank you for your answer. After writing the question and thinking on it i also came to the conclusion that informing and co-authorship are two different things. I myself consider that comments are not co-authorship. I commended on at least 6 papers of collegues, it never crossed my mind that i should be a co-author because i checked a calculation they did. The added me in the acknownledgment section and i was very happy and ok with that. Even if the did not included me its fine with me.

If it takes me 300 hours to write the paper and there comes someone that works 5-6 hours on the same paper I cannot understand how it is ok to be added as a contributor.

Maybe i do not understand how academia works or maybe my advisor is not the best.

In math and perhaps other theoretical fields, a five minute conversation over coffee can change the essence of a paper, certainly warranting co-authorship of what comes of it. Time is not the measure. Ideas are.

So should the credit be the same? The one who had the idea and the one you worked on it for months, they should be considered the same?

Each case is different. But if you've worked on something for a long time and someone else give you an a-ha moment on the crux of the problem it might warrant co-authorship, and probably would in math, at least. Probably other theoretical fields. Maybe even applied fields. Again, time isn't the measure. Einstein isn't celebrated because he took ten years to come up with Special Relativity. He is celebrated for the idea itself.

Ok, thank you for you help! I will either tell them, or throw away the paper and forget about it.

Throwing away the paper seems sub optimal and self defeating. I once attended a workshop on self-defeating behavior and it changed my life to a degree. Relax, at least.

Right: time spent is not the measure. Experienced people often can be much faster at certain (useful) things, because they've done them many times before. In my part of mathematics, a suboptimal version of a "computation" can take months or years, while a peculiar and unobvious concept makes the outcome "obvious" (for people who know the trick). In some regards, that's the whole "trick" of expertise: being able to do seemingly ghastly-labor-intensive things "by pure thought", as they say. :)

There is also the issue of whether having them (and their implied reputation) as a co-author could benefit you (or not).  I think we need to get away from this cute mover mentality.

@Trunk you can say that, but the truth is that reputation counts for quite a lot in academia.

I do not know however if this will irritate my advisor.

I don’t know about your particular supervisor, but if I were them, I would be irritated by your approach so far for three reasons:

You have not consulted me as to whether your new work was a worthy use of your time. What if I could have told you within minutes that you are re-inventing the wheel or that I know somebody who already attempted what you are doing and failed? What if the outcome of your work is obvious for some reason you are not considering or otherwise completely irrelevant? Or what if there are important implications of your results that you are missing?
Your approach is not only inefficient but also implies a great lack of trust in my supervision. Even if your supervisor deserves this a lack of trust, you obviously want to consider whether you want to let them know this way.

Similarly to the above, your behaviour also indicates a lack of trust on my guidance on procedural questions (as opposed to subject-specific questions), such as whom to include as an author or where to submit your manuscript. For example, what if you completely underestimated the relevance of your work and thus undersold it? Or what if you neglected to include a third person as an author?

In many academic systems, you have to report to me because I am your boss in an employment sense or because of some rule of your PhD programme. You are obliged to tell me what you are doing with your work time and I need to know for various reasons. There is probably something else that I expect you to work on. So, unless you did all the work in question in your free time, why am I learning about this only now?

I have worked on several solo projects leading to single-author publications while under different supervisors, and every time my supervisor knew early on that I was working on a topic of my own and what that topic was. The only exception was a very short paper that I completely did in my free time and was completely unrelated to my main work and my supervisor’s expertise.
Mind that all of the above already applies if your supervisor does not insist on an undeserved co-authorship. Finding out whether they do is a delicate task (also see this question and High GPA’s answer), but submitting the paper without their knowledge is certainly not the best way to do this.

However for all of the papers that I have written, I have done most (basically ALL) of the hard part, being the calculations in my case, and I have discussed the physics as well as writing the whole paper.

The way you are writing this has a smell of you being mistaken about what constitutes (ethical) authorship. I am by no means certain on this, but please honestly consider this and if possible consult somebody in your field on this.
Particularly, it surprises me that you consider calculations the hard part of your work. While calculations may be the central and time-consuming part of your work, they are usually only legwork and not where the scientific innovation happens (though your mileage may vary depending on your subfield). Instead, the central part of the innovation is something like: “Let’s try to make progress on [overarching question] by considering [scenario] and calculating [thing].” or: “Can we use [something] to calculate [thing], which is often needed?”.
You did not write who was responsible for this part of your work. Did some other publication say that somebody should calculate what you calculated? Did this arise from your PhD topic (which probably was laid out by your supervisor to at least some extent)? Is there any conceptual innovation at all? As a peer reviewer, I have successfully recommended to reject papers that contained tons of difficult calculations on the basis that they utterly failed to motivate them.

Thank you for your time to answer this question.
I disagree with most of your suggestions and comments. There are other things that i have not shared in the original question that i though were unnecessary. Some of them: no one pays me to do my PhD, i have to work other jobs in order to survive, i have already written the minimum of three papers required to complete my PhD, everything i do from now on is work for a better future. My supervisor agree with that i have finished with my PhD. However there are rules for the minimum ammount of time for a PhD to be completed in my institution.

The help of my supervisor was:
"Ok so there is this and that, and i have also worked on the other thing. So would you like to try considering these previous works, combine them with that other thing, in order to see the effect of that on the resulting physics???"
After that, the advisor commented on versions of the draft. In my cries for help, when i could not calculate what was needed, there advice was to "ok lets make the problem easier", instead of actually helping me with the calulation that i was stuck.

@ApolloRa: I can only suggest what to consider based on what you told us (and I am not saying that you told us too little). If you already considered these things or they don’t apply, good. But that doesn’t mean I was wrong to tell you to consider them. Also, the goal for answers is not only to help you but others in a similar situation.

when i could not calculate what was needed, there advice was to "ok lets make the problem easier", instead of actually helping me with the calulation that i was stuck. – I am not sure how this is supposed to relate to my answer. Also, I obviously cannot judge that particular case, but two thoughts: 1) What implies a greater trust in your expertise? “ApolloRa failed to solve this; hold my beer.” or “ApolloRa failed to solve this; I will probably not find a solution ad hoc.” 2) It is a valid problem-solving technique, to make a problem easier (and hope for insights from that).

I would appreciate something like: Ok let's see where you got stuck. Or I cannot help you but I know someone who can. Of i will search for some references. Or at leas something that is actually helpful on the particular problem. Not changing the problem so we can have something to publish.

@ApolloRa It sounds more like you are not recognizing the help your advisor gives you than it sounds like they are objectively unhelpful. It certainly works best when the mentorship style a student wants is the same that their advisor provides, but it doesn't make them wrong if that's not the case.

@BryanKrause thank you for your comment. Maybe I'm wrong. Reading all these comments makes me feel that I'm wrong.

It is difficult to share 3 years of (in my opinion failed) mentorship in a few paragraphs, and maybe there were times that my advisor was helpful. I don't feel that way at all, and as a person, I think that I acknowledge even the smallest help if any.

@ApolloRa It's certainly okay to feel unhappy with your supervision; maybe indeed your advisor is terrible and I've gotten the wrong idea from a situation I can't know much about. However (and this applies to relationships in general: work, friends, romantic), it's often more productive to think in terms of what you want/need rather than how others are failing you, and try to communicate that. So, rather than "here's a paper draft", try "I'm stuck at this step, do you see a solution? or know if there is a name for this problem so I can search more?"

@BryanKrause, I cannot thank you enough. This is by far the best piece of advice that I received asking this question.

You're asking the wrong question: if you intend to publish the paper, then your supervisor will know about it. The fact that you are keeping it secret now is going to be apparent at that point. So the question really is: should your supervisor find out that you've been working independently from you, or from the arxiv/pubmed/publication repository used in your discipline? There really isn't any positive aspect from the latter, unless (perhaps) you intend to defer the publication of this paper until after you have finished your PhD and secured your next position.
It is possible to publish as sole author or last author (for non-alphabetical fields) in your PhD; it is quite field-dependent (it is more common in fields with higher publication output, lower experimental costs and flatter hierarchies). But ultimately, whether it's generally "possible" or "normal" or "acceptable" is not hugely relevant in the specific case you are in. It's impossible to know from what you wrote whether your advisor is taking advantage of your work or giving you room to develop your independence, and likewise whether you're being self-reliant or petty. But I really struggle to see a scenario in which I, as a supervisor, would be happy to find out my student has been developing a "secret" line of research specifically to exclude my authorship.
It is up to you to decide whether the benefits of this sole-author paper offset burning bridges with your supervisor (in a way that will look, to anyone who is sympathetic to them, spiteful). Do consider, however, that your opinions may be strongly coloured by your frustration with your supervisor's methods and that there may be healthier ways to address an incompatibility in supervision style than through a weird "secret revenge paper" ploy.

Theres no secret revenge paper ploy. If there is no contribution by their side why feel bad about not knowing? They are not my partner. They do not pay me, neither does the instution. Why should I tell them?

@Apollo Wait, who pays you then??

No one. I do other jobs in order to survive.

I think your university, department and supervisor have a right to know if you are publishing anything - even stuff entirely done by yourself and someone else.
This is because:
(1) You would be unlikely to have this work done had it not been that you were given a PhD studentship in the first place. Sure, I know doing a PhD shows you the cynical underbelly of academia. But we all still learn an awful lot in a short time in such systems. if nothing else we have free access to the university labs, libraries, hardware and software. And we should acknowledge this. It's a bit like parents: we can hate them for the values they espoused and the unfairnesses imposed on us growing up but they did raise us and we should respect that fact at least.
(2) The fact that the new work you are publishing is closely related to your PhD work and papers previously published under your own and your supervisor's name makes telling your supervisor more important still. Suppose someone on the editorial board of the journal knows him and mentions your paper en passant in some phone conversation ... Academics hate being left out of the loop by any student - just like senior managers hate not being invited to promotion parties of a junior manager they originally hired.
(3) If the supervisor gets mad with you over this, he'll have a lot of sympathy from the rest of the faculty. You can't go too far in academia with your department disapproving of you - at least not unless you are a sociopath or something worse.
Informing your supervisor should not be in the oblique way that HighGPA suggests. It should be frank, eye-contact communication and as a separate item in the conversation. Don't try to pull fast ones on older dogs - they have the experience to corner you.
On authorship, I feel you should stand your ground. If the supervisor presses for a co-authorship just ask him why and then agree to "think it over".
But don't go solo on this and keep your supervisor and department in the dark. That's my final advice to you - although I used to do such things at your age albeit with a total buffoon and parasite "supervisor".

Thank you for your answer. Especially for the last paragraph. Knowing that someone has been there is at least comforting. I think that i will share the draft.

Academics in a position of greater influence and seniority do abuse their position to obtain credit for work they did not do. Victims are usually junior staff and the better post-docs, seldom PhD students. There are also academics who are extremely generous in sharing credit, often leaning backward to give the younger people the best possible resume.
So it is possible that your supervisor is of the first kind, and that you are a PhD student who is hard done by and at the very bottom of the academic abuse hierarchy. That sucks, but pissing people off will not always make things better, although sometimes you do have to throw your weight around to be respected.
You don't want to tell your supervisor you have been working on this because...? They will want to be on the paper and that will annoy you? Or they will steal the idea and publish it yourself?
You can most certainly go ahead and submit the paper. There is a chance that the handling editor and or a reviewer will talk to your supervisor, saying, "Hey, here's a person from your institute working in your field, do you know them?" - and then your supervisor (whether they are a vampire or not) will be justifiably annoyed with you.
Or you might get the thing published, but sooner or later they will find out.

All of the papers are my work and my work only.

You state this very categorically. If this is so, it is most unusual, but then your circumstances do appear to be unusual. It sounds almost as if you are pursuing your research entirely under your own steam, with the advisor on board only because this is a formal requirement for the PhD trajectory.
UK universities have an "external track" option where a person does work equivalent to a PhD these all by themselves (often as part of their professional career) and then a supervisor/advisor from the uni gets involved only at the stage of submitting the thesis to the committees etc. at that uni. The role of the supervisor/advisor is to vouch that the work is of sufficient quality to be submitted to that system, and perhaps help the candidate with bringing the work into the required form.
I am bringing this up because in this system, the quasi-administrative status of the advisor is clear, and all parties involved understand who is supposed to be doing what.
You seem to be in a situation that is effectively like that, but the supervisor in a more conventional rule.
I am extremely well versed in bringing such matters to a good conclusion, but with the details you furnish I am at a loss to guess what is going on here!

Story time. I was in the middle of my PhD when I had dinner with a friend of mine (we were both physicists). As we were chatting, she came up with an idea that significantly changed the orientation of my thesis - introducing brand new concepts and making it truly exceptional (in the sense of "very much different from others" :)).
It was a 5 minutes part of our 2 or 3 hours-long chat but undeniably impacting. She was vigorously thanked in my PhD.
I published two papers on that topic, I asked her if she wanted to collaborate on them. She declined (lack of time and interest) but I did thank her, again vigorously, in both papers.
Conclusion: you should discuss that with your thesis director.
You can say that you've been writing a paper and ask whether he would be interested to have a look and comment. You do not have to talk about co-authorship at all.
If he adds his name after this review, well, you are a bit stuck because the reality of this world is that you have a lot to lose and him, not much. You can of course fight and publish on your own without his involvement but as you can imagine you set yourself for a hard time until you've defended your thesis.

Thank you for your answer. Everyone else answers from the point of view of being a professor. Thank you for contributing your opinion.

Curiously I generally have the opposite problem.  I am a PhD student and I would like to have more co-authored papers with my supervisor to demonstrate teamwork ability and to improve the paper, but when I ask my supervisor if he is interested in being a co-author he just says he is too busy so sort it out and publish it by yourself if you wish to publish the results in a journal.
I honestly find it interesting that people are so against having co-authored papers with a supervisor and absolutely insist on being the only author.  This insistence is generally quite meaningless in the scheme of things (almost all of Nirenberg's papers were published with collaborators and he was one of the leading mathematicians of the twentieth century).
Edit: To be more clear, a person does not have to be a co-author on your article if they did not contribute in any significant way.  It does not matter if they are your supervisor.  If they did not contribute, then by scientific integrity they should not be included.  However, in a progress panel or something like this, you may be asked why your supervisor is not a co-author on paper X, so make sure you have a careful, diplomatic response prepared which you can give to this question which is not ''they did nothing apart from make some worthless comments''.

Never said that i'm against on having co-authored papers. If there is actual contribution then of course i would be very happy to be your co-author. If you make worthless comments then i will thank you for your time to read the paper in the acknowledgment. I clearly write "f someone comments on my work I will very kindly include that person on the acknowledgement section. I would like to be the single author if I am actually the single author.".

If I'm reading correctly, the answer proposed here is "don't try to avoid adding your supervisor as an author."

@user120905 I have edited and clarified my position.  I have been in this situation before, so I sympathise.  I think if possible try to remove anyone who has not contributed to the article if you can, but be pragmatic as you don't want to excessively delay publication when applying for jobs.  Obviously, on integrity grounds, a person should not be included without contributing, but that is obvious.

I did a theoretical physics PhD in 2006-2010 so I might be out of date on current practices but I had a similar issue. I'm in the UK btw.
My supervisor wasn't around my entire 2nd year and both myself and her other student were left rather "high and dry". I resolved to do everything myself (after a bit of a dip in my motivation, to be honest) and eventually published a pretty lengthy paper solo. The total input she had was when I submitted it to a journal I gave her a copy. And I didn't mention her in it. I could tell she was surprised I'd written a paper but no question regard co-author recognition or even mention. No one else from the department raised an issue, even when I presented the paper in a weekly seminar thing we did.
If you've a good relationship then I'd, personally, say putting them front and centre in the acknowledgements is sufficient if they literally did NOTHING. I  don't subscribe to the "I'm your supervisor so I get co-author on all your papers". If someone has risen to the level of responsibility to be supervising PhDs then they have a responsibility to contribute. If they do that, they get to be co-author. But simply being somewhere else in the building, not replying to emails and not giving any feedback on drafts, shouldn't be "rewarded" with another paper to their name.
From your description they have been involved but saying "you dropped a psi in equation 2.5" isn't co-author material, I'd expect a mate reading over my shoulder to tell me that stuff. If they said "Section 2 is an interesting direction but if you don't address ((issue)) you'll find you cannot make the conclusions in Section 5 justifiable to a reviewer. Here's my notes on that stuff" THEN you're into potential co-authorship but only if they followed through with you on that stuff.
Pointing people to papers/books and saying "That's not right, try again" isn't co-author worthy IMO. It's absolutely something to acknowledge but that's different - I acknowledged my house mates in my thesis!
If you struggle to even think what they actively wrote, not just told you to expand/redo, then acknowledge them, tell them of the paper when it's finished. If they're cheesed and tell you in a professional manner then respond professionally. If they don't behave professionally then you were right in the first place.


text:
Does the font matter when putting a manuscript on arXiv?
I have a research paper that I want to upload on arXiv. Almost all the papers I have seen on arXiv are written in Times New Roman. I understand scientific papers are written in that font mostly. But I have seen papers from DeepMind and other AI labs writing in a wide variety of fonts including Trebuchet MS.
I've written my paper in Trebuchet MS because it is an easily readable font. Do I need to change my font into Times New Roman or will Trebuchet MS be fine with arXiv? I was unable to find a clear answer onlibe or in the submission guidelines.

Is "arvix" a typo for "Arxiv"? Or some other website?

It sounds like your have written your paper in MS Word. Assuming you mean arXiv instead of "Arvix", they mostly accept papers written in LaTeX and as such the typeface won't be Times New Roman or anything like that, but typically Computer Modern.

I understand Scientific papers are written in Times New Roman font mostly

Regarding this premise, it is probably not correct for arXiv papers. As you may know, arXiv covers a range of topics but mainly invites papers on mathematics, physics, computer science and related areas. These papers are written mainly in LaTeX. The default font in LaTeX is Computer Modern.

I've written my paper in "Trebuchet MS" because it is an easily readable font.

Many modern fonts are "better" than Computer Modern in one way or another. However, note that Trebuchet MS is designed primarily as a web font that should render well in browsers. Research papers typically are distributed in pdf, and benefit most from fonts that are designed for printing on paper. A web font may be nice and readable on screen but appear poorly on paper when printed.
During arXiv submission you will have an opportunity to check the final pdf as it will appear for readers. You may simply submit paper to arXiv and see if you encounter any issues during the submission. In case of any problems it's best to approach the arXiv support team for instructions.

If you have trouble with a specific product (i.e. arXiv), you should write first to the product maintainers (i.e. Contact section).
How are you producing your document? you can submit to arXiv only in 3 family of formats (in order of preference):

(La)TeX, AMS(La)TeX, PDFLaTeX
PDF
HTML with JPEG/PNG/GIF images

Regarding pdf, they clearly state:

You must ensure that all non-standard fonts are included and that
outline (TrueType/Type1) rather than bitmap (Type3) fonts are used. In
Adobe Distiller and many other products this is referred to as
compatibility mode and will ensure that the PDF document is as
portable as possible.

So it boils down to:

do you have the rights to share a document with Trebuchet? do you need permission from the copyrights'owners?
can you technically bring the font in your LaTex or PDF or HTML document?

Good luck finding someone to endorse you (since you state you are a high-school student...) and good luck with your research work!

This font seems unencumbered by any restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet_MS

I've worked with MIT, Stanford and Oxford University professors. I believe I can ask them for endorsing me :) Though this research paper is my own work. Btw Thank you for answering and your best wishes!

@Buffy I am sure the answer cannot be found here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/typography/fonts/font-faq but I am sure that page must be read to ask the proper question to arXiv people


text:
Is there any uniform date for applying for Phd positions in the Italy for mathematics?
I am not a resident of Europe and I am in 2nd year of my masters in Mathematics.
My research interest aligns with many professors of universities in Italy. I wrote to one prof. asking about open position for PhD but he said normally application window is open in December -January. I was under the impression that it Italy the application window is from June to July (I saw some ads during my 1st year and that's why I thought of this).
Can you please confirm about approximate months of application window in Italy for mathematics?

It depends on the institutions. Since you are from outside Europe, you should consider applying to the SISSA doctoral school in Trieste. Great school, english speaking administration, great connections to many places in Europe and the US ... and the city is a wonderful city lying on the sea (but you have also fog in autumn and cold and snow in winter, so you can enjoy all seasons).

There isn't really a uniform application window for the PhD in Italy, and every university has its own deadlines (e.g. my university has three application windows with deadlines in February, June and September).
Even though December-January seems a bit unusual, I wouldn't exclude this possibility. Since universities have websites in which the PhD application deadlines are advertised, I suggest you to have a look at the one of that university, also because deadlines may change across years and professors may not be aware of the changes (don't trust professors on deadlines!).

Maybe an important point to add is that PhD positions in Italy are given out at the department level, and then the students decide who they want to work with. In other countries it's professors that hire their own students.


text:
How to deal with the lack of communication from the university (both HR and department) after accepting their lectureship offer?
I just accepted a lectureship position (offered by a UK institute) almost 15 days ago. As an international individual, I am supposed to apply for a Skilled Worker Visa supported by a sponsorship certificate. 15 days ago, the HR sent me an offer (the department head was also cc'd) asserting that I first need to apply for an ATAS before they can issue any sponsorship certificate. That HR person stressed that I have to be pretty fast since that ATAS thing may take over 3 weeks to be issued. In the UK government website, one reads

... proposed course of study/area of research: the university or
research institute you are proposing to study/research at will provide
you with the relevant details for this section e.g. in your
conditional offer letter or statement of research. They will advise
you of the appropriate CAH3 code and give you the correct form of
words for the ‘What Will you be Studying/Research Statement’ box. You
should use the university’s description here. You will be able to add
to this description in the next box: ‘Personnel Statement of Intent’.
Add your Head of Department if you are still waiting for a
research/study supervisor allocation.

So, I just sent the HR an email (again, cc'ing the head of the department) asking whether I will be supplied by any of the relevant details the paragraph above asserts. But, they have been totally ignoring my correspondence. I sent them another follow-up email 3 days ago that was also left unanswered. Now, I am a bit confused about what is actually going on both in terms of timing and how I am supposed to deal with their lack of active communication, should their silence continue. I also have to get an attestation certificate for my Ph.D. as a part of my visa application about which I sent another inquiry to the HR 2 weeks ago, and they ignored that, as well.
1- My (inexperienced) impression is that the provision of those research details, so that I can use them in my ATAS application, should not take that much time, especially not more than 2 weeks. Is there anyone experienced in (or knowledgeable about) this procedure to correct me, if I'm wrong?
2- I have not that much time to waste given the fact the UK embassy advised me to apply my visa application as fast as I can due to my nationality which may require extensive time-consuming checks. Now, what should I do if their silence and lack of communication continues? I thought I better contact the head of the department, but it might be useless because he himself is a part of this miss-communication. Namely, the head of the department has been cc'd in all post-offer communications of mine with the HR, and I even asked him a relative question in those emails, and he didn't pay any attention. This manner of his is not a new thing if we go back to 15 days ago, when we had an informal zoom meeting. When he sent me an invitation, the purpose field was empty. Being unaware whether it is supposed to be another round of interview, I politely wrote him an email asking what the subject of our meeting is. He ignored my email. In the course of that meeting, I referred to my email, and he just smiled and said he had saw that! So, I have not found him more responsive than the HR. In one hand, I would like to avoid over-pushing them, and on the other hand, I can't parse what this ignoring trend of theirs means. I have the option of contacting the head of the college (she is the "boss" of the head of the department, and she knows me as she was present in the selection process of mine). But, I am wondering if that provokes the head of the department thinking that I want to show him irresponsible  in view of his boss.

I am not sure how the administration is where you are but I find this behaviour completely normal. In Germany, it took the HR of my university two weeks to respond to my -urgent- email because they were overloaded with other tasks. If you want things to work faster with administration, call them!

@Younes: Are you a student or a faculty member?

Welcome to Europe, where slowness, and unresponsiveness is appreciated!

Call them if they're not responding to urgent emails.

Specifically, call the HR person handling your case.

Or even call the switchboard/main reception and give the name of the HR person you would like to speak with. Sometimes individuals numbers are not public, but the switchboard can still put you through.


text:
How should I approach my academic dishonesty in graduate study application?
In my junior year I was caught cheating. I took in extra papers in an exam and tried to look up information on them (honestly, this was deliberate cheating). I have received the following sanctions:

Grade zero for the course
My Bachelor degree will be conferred one year after my graduation

I retook the course and got an A afterwards. On my transcript there is a mark indicating a retaken course (but not dishonesty). I decided to learn from this and move on afterwards. I made no mistakes after that. I maintained a GPA of 3.8/4.0 (or top 5%), produced several manuscripts on submission in my undergraduate research and TAed several times with nice experiences. I'm also sure my recommendation letters will be strong (at least OK).
I fear that someone who knows this history can report this to my school even if I get admitted, which is more disastrous, so I must state this clearly in my applications. However, it is still a tough job for me to approach my academic dishonesty in graduate study application (I have graduated this year and plan to apply this year also).
Question: I will be asked if I have been sanctioned because of academic dishonesty. I decide to answer ``yes'' honestly. But how should I explain it? Will this be fatal to my chances of admission? Should I talk to my adviser (who does not know my mistake) to address my changes in the recommendation letter?
(I am not a US citizen but I plan to apply for programs in the US.)

It's the cover-up that kills you.
You are right to be honest about your sanction for academic dishonesty.  In terms of explaining it, just be honest about what happened, your motivation, etc., but also be prepared to talk about how your attitude and approach to such matters has changed since this incident.  For a graduate study application, I would be surprised if this incident is fatal to your application.  Cheating during an exam in junior year is bad, but we understand that students sometimes come into university in an immature state, and they learn and grow from there.  If you are honest about the incident (and especially if you volunteer it in a situation where it is not otherwise recorded) then that will go a long way to showing a change in attitude to such matters.
In regard to your suggestion that you disclose this matter to your present advisor, that seems like a reasonable idea to me.  If you disclose the incident and let your advisor know how you've grown since then, it is likely that your advisor can make an assessment and recommendation that takes account of this.  If you don't disclose the issue to your advisor, and the advisor provides a letter of recommendation, there is a danger that the recommendation will be seen as inadequate, due to the lack of information available to the writer.
There's an old saying about incidents like these: "It's not the crime that kills you, it's the cover-up."  (I think this comes from Richard Nixon, but not certain.)  What we mean about this is that people are often reasonably forgiving of an initial lapse in ethics, but they are much less forgiving when an initial lapse is compounded by further dishonesty in hiding the incident.  I can't really make any promises as to how a potential advisor will react to your disclosure, but I can say that if it were me, I would not be put off supervising a student who has done this early in their university education and then grown and developed the integrity to disclose the problem and behave differently in future.


text:
Is it ethical for a referee to recommend rejection after many months from receiving the manuscript?
I am an early-career researcher in mathematics. In general, after submitting a paper to a journal, it is advised to wait six months before requesting information about the status of the review process. In other words, in mathematics peer review takes a lot of time.
Having said that, I tend not to fully understand why a reviewer would take 3+ months before recommending to reject a paper. Certainly there are cases where this is inevitable (e.g., if the paper is highly technical), yet I would expect reviewers to keep a manuscript for more than 4-6 months only if they are willing to recommend acceptance.
So my question is. Is it ethical/generally accepted for a reviewer to recommend rejection after months from receiving the manuscript?

why need so many questions here that are purely technically always this "ethical" link/connotation?! A journal operates like a small enterprise, not like a conformistic church or politicians. If the review time is too long for your taste, choose another journal!? There is balance between ethical and free choice of behaviour in science or there was at least once....Reading this website one gets the impression there is for every question here a ethical criterions framework and the answer relating best to this imaginary often not existing framework gets the most upvotes,but already the Q is wrong

"I would expect reviewers to keep a manuscript for more than 4-6 months only if they are willing to recommend acceptance." Why? What's your reasoning here? Unless the paper is clearly flawed at first glance, why would you expect writing a positive review to take less time than writing a negative review? I don't know about other people, but I find that (in math) explaining why a certain part of the paper is mistaken or not important or novel enough takes more time than writing a report which simply says that the paper is great, does not contain any substantial errors, and should be accepted.

How long is your paper and how hard is it?

I have had a paper get rejected after over a year of being in review. Journals can reject a paper after any length of time spent in review. Ethics don't really apply.

Actually, time isn't the important variable here, quality of the paper is, as well as the required correctness, of course. And authors are warned about the time in any case.
Every reviewer should be willing to accept every paper when it arrives. They should also be willing to reject every paper.
But reviewing isn't the first priority of people willing to review. They have their own work. They have their own students to attend to. And, to do a good job on a paper likely requires work of its own along with several readings. In fact, in mathematics, and perhaps other fields, it is busy people who you want to be the reviewers: active mathematicians with a deep interest in the field, not novices with time on their hands.
What wouldn't be ethical is to agree to review a paper and then ignore it completely after receiving it or to come to a conclusion and not communicate it to the editor. But, otherwise, there is no ethical concern about the time of a review, whether the paper is recommended for acceptance, revision, or rejection.
The goal is to get good work published, not to win a race.

Well, for some PhD students it's really a race: some PhD programmes require students to have at least an accepted publication by the end of the PhD, and if you have a one-year review time in a three-year programme, the student might be in trouble.

@MassimoOrtolano, there are ethical implications of such policies, of course. Making student success completely dependent on things that can't be managed in any way is the issue, not the time to review. Arguably, such policies can also lead to lots of inconsequential papers that are easy to review. Don't conflate the two issues. By their very nature, important papers in math take time to review.

I don't conflate the two issues, but one should also be realistic, and for early career researchers long review times can put them at disadvantage with respect to researchers in nearby field. After all, what is the fraction of actually important papers with respect to the total?

I can understand why you are upset. However, you do not know all relevant facts. It could have been that your reviewer only took a couple of days, because the first reviewer had a problem and could not review it, such as an illness, and the reviewer then was a replacement selected by the editor. It could be that the reviewer was the original reviewer, but something such as an illness or a similar catastrophe delayed the review. That should not oblige the reviewer to recommend acceptance. It could be that there was an accident relaying the review such as an unsent email.
There are many possibilities other than the reviewer deciding to sit on the manuscript to make your life harder.


text:
How personalized does a CS postdoc research statement have to be?
I am looking for postdocs in computer science in the US. My spouse and children will not be able to move. So I have decided to look for positions at universities very close to my city. This puts me in the slightly strange position of having to look for postdocs in areas not very connected to my thesis.
(FWIW, my thesis is on a specific area of machine learning (manifold learning), but I am open to positions in ML applications for healthcare, explainable AI, computer vision, natural language processing, collaborative computing, human computer interaction, etc.)
With my location constraints, I am confused about how my research statement can cater to professors in all/most of these areas with minimal rewriting. Or do I have to tailor the statement for every application to reflect the defined current research focus of each lab?
I understand that the part of the research statement that talks about my previous accomplishments will remain the same, but other than that, tailoring the future plans part for each lab seems like a lot of effort. (I have identified around 20 labs so far.)

just a comment: if you have around 20 labs around you, you have 2020+ opportunities. You live in an scientifically rich region, there are at least 100 companies gravitating around each lab (directly and indirectly). If not in the academia you will surely find a job in one of the 2000+ companies gravitating around the labs. Good luck!

Look at it from the point of view of a lab director. They will want someone who can be productive right away, because post-doc funding does not provide for an extensive training period. They will want someone that is enthusiastic and has new ideas so that things will get done (papers written, grants submitted, students graduated). You do in fact have to tailor your research statement to each lab and you do have to do some homework trying to figure out what type of person they are looking for. The better a job you do, the more chances to you have of getting a position and of actually fitting in well. A narrative of: "This is my specialization". But "I want to be more of a generalist" / "I want to branch out into this sub-field and this is what I can contribute to it" / "I want to apply my knowledge to a specific area and this is what I can do for you" would be more successful than just asking for a job. Luckily for you, there are many industrial positions that pay quite well, so that there will be less competition for post-docs.

Since you are geographically constrained you actually have the opportunity to go and talk to several people who might be interested about how you might fit into their work. And also, how you might extend their scope to fit with yours, something they might consider.
I suggest you don't pander to their (guessed) needs, but ask them what they actually might get from your skills. Your area is hot at the moment, so you have something to give.
And, your postdoc doesn't necessarily need to be an extension of your "thesis", so think more broadly, which you seem to have done about applications at least.
Note that some teaching might also be important in some places and it might be another bargaining chip if you have those skills.
Longer term, however, work toward figuring out how to make the geographical constraints less binding. This is joint thinking for the whole family, of course.