text:
How are professors able to multitask?
How are professors able to multitask seemingly well?
I see some professors are able to work on their laptops in seminar or other presentations, sometimes talk to the person next to them, and then still come up with a suggestion or question at the end of it which bemuses me.

For me, a question or suggestion is usually triggered by one specific point in the presentation.  So being able to ask a sensible question only really implies that they were paying attention for at least 10 seconds :-)

Are you asking about at conferences? In that case, they've probably read the paper being presented before hand and already have a (dozen) question(s) prepared.

@tonysdg, I'm not sure that many people would care to prepare questions just because it'd be possible... Sure, I do know some who would, just to show that they could, ... but this starts to be just "display", rather than anything about science, cognition, or anything intellectual. Just turf wars? :)

@paulgarrett: I'm only speaking from experience in my area (computer engineering) -- at the last conference I went to, we had read a few interesting papers beforehand and had a variety of questions we wanted to ask the authors about. We only asked during Q&A session if it naturally fit, of course, but we definitely talked with authors offline/during the receptions.

@tonysdg, ah, ok, so legitimate, sincere questions. Good. Good. :) In some venues in my business this is too rare...

@paulgarrett: Haha sorry if I didn't make that clear -- yes, legitimate questions :) And yes, I've heard more than a few of the questions you're talking about too!

@tonysdg I hadn't intended it to be at conferences, but that could fit. I was going more for the general events where someone is presenting something to a large group of people (and my most recent exposures have been seminars).

Multitasking is a feature that many professors find to be an unnecessary burden, as long as they have enough PhD/MSc students.

Regrettably some of us are not :(

I had one supervisor who was great at giving the impression of listening, whether or not he meant to. He'd be working on his laptop and you would talk to him as he nodded, till finally you finished and asked his advice and he said, "Sorry, what were you saying?" This happened often enough that when an undergrad came into the office where we were sitting, they'd usually commit this error and I had to warn them. He was so focused that I didn't hesitate to comment aloud, "Wait two minutes — he can't hear you right now"! So my question is... can they all multitask so well? :p

I would like to know, how professor are able to hold more than one position in era where there is lack of tenure-track position.

As in many situations, more novelty creates greater cognitive load, while non-novelty creates essentially no load. A teensy bit of interesting novelty is little cognitive load, but/and can be quite provocative, depending.
Since relatively experienced people have ... experienced many things... few seminar talks would present much that is radically new, even if it is new to novices. So, even if it is not somehow made explicit by the speaker or by the senior members of the audience, 90% or more of any talk will be a recapitulation of known things... Yes, it is understood that this is mostly necessary, to set a common context for discussion, and that there is not any genuine novelty there.
Also, there is a self-referential aspect to the premises of the question. Namely, the people one sees multi-tasking happily are the ones who can do it. Those who prefer mono-tasking will not be seen multi-tasking. So there's a "selection bias", as well.
And, for me, as for many relatively senior people, I/we have seen many things, and even superficially novel aspects of a seminar presentation may be echoes of things we thought about 30 years ago, etc. Not that there's not progress, but that there are questions that have been pending for decades, and preying on our minds, so (hoping that our minds are still working well) it is not burdensome to hear contemporary progress, but, rather, a happy event. But, in contrast, novices of course have no reference to related technicalities they reflected upon 30 years ago, etc.
And, apart from a greater accumulated experience of ideas and facts, I imagine that a vastly greater experience of coping with novelty and confusion gives a great advantage. E.g., if a smart kid has never in their life before been seriously confused, it is a disturbing experience. And this is a serious issue for very-smart kids in most environments. Similarly for very-smart kids in most undergrad environments. Even up to a point in graduate programs... but/and all the worse to soooo belatedly (after establishing habits that cannot accommodate for this) discover that high-level science (etc.) involves a constant rain of confusion and exceeding-parameters. (For me, this is entertaining, yes, but for those who think that people can control/understand everything easily, and not be confused, it is often deeply disquieting, I gather.)
Practice makes perfect.

The main issue of multitasking is what Paul Garrett described: being familiar with what is going on.
One important thing about multitasking is it is not doing something simultaneously, but sequentially, very fast, while skipping things that are not important. Human brain can't focus on several things at one time, but it can switch between an array of tasks in milliseconds, given enough practice. Professors usually become professors by doing a certain set of tasks for many years and getting very good and very fast at it so it may seem like they are almost doing multiple tasks simultaneously.
For many it is just a routine one follows subconsciously: a student starts speaking - pay attention; what they are saying is familiar - switch to the laptop until they finish because you already know what they will say next; someone walking, sitting down, standing up - 5 seconds to do something else; you spaced out thinking about something important (e.g. lunch) - pull out a universal question or a joke from up a very long sleeve.
It is also similar to reading: how to humans read and recognize so many letters almost instantly? Look at the first letter, the last, skip everything in the middle, repeat for a few words, guess the rest.

I agree with you on everything you said in this answer except the last paragraph. I had to read every word you wrote before I could understand it. I did not skip everything in the middle. Still, +1.

@scaaahu Thanks, I meant a common method of reading doesn't require you to see even half the letters to understand the word and some words are ignored entirely during reading. If you read every word and every letter, you would be proofreading.

You're in China. I am a native Chinese speaking person. I have to read almost every letter of a word before I know the meaning of the word. A common problem for Chinese. For example, I must read the whole word to understand the word "word", otherwise, how do I know it's not "world" because you could say "understand the  world"?

I'd like to offer a different interpretation of what you are seeing, along the line of Nate's comment:
The speaker says something that sparks the listener's interest, either because it sounds wrong, or because it relates to something they've been thinking about recently, or...
This triggers a new thought. They pull out their laptop to check with other things they've read before, or do some calculations, or ... generally do some research.
After a while, they come to some conclusion, either positive or negative, and talk to a neighbour as a sanity check.
In question time, they ask about the point they have been thinking about.
Overall, no multi-tasking needs to have taken place at all.

I am not a professor yet, but let me answer a tangent question: "How to get good at multitasking?"
Caveat: I am talking less on "talk to a colleague while still catching on a talk" and more on "managing 3 grant applications, 4 PhD candidates, and 5 lectures all at the same time." For more on the previous, see the bottom part of my answer.
Mono task
There are some typical situations, such as the beginning of a new job or the start of a PhD, when you have only one task. You don't have to teach, you have this one project only, no follow-ups or returning papers or research collaborations.
So, at the start, you do only one task and learn to do it well. Then everything changes as more tasks appear.
Switching
I learned the switching by necessity. At that point I had a day job in programming and night-and-weekends PhD pursuit. Well, not so bad, day job was part-time, 50%. Naturally, I focused on the job during the job days. The next morning of the weekend, having rested and sort of purposely pushed the job away, I focused on PhD stuff.
This should not necessary be day job and moonlighting. Teaching and research, project A and project B, it's all the same.
Context switch
So, there is some kind of a mental switch between the two tasks. You do only one task at a time, but switch between them. (If you have a CS background, that's what basically OS did before SMP era and in a sense are still doing now.)
Of course, if you do your first switches, you notice that you need a lot of time to become productive again. You need to read up the background you have forgotten, for example. Taking a nap as a part of switch also helps.
After doing such switches every week for a year, I noticed that they become easier and faster. After one more year I got really good. (And also got funding, so I could ditch the day job, even though I learned there a lot, too.)
Nowadays (around 11 years after first attempts at multitasking), I can switch from my lecture mode to answering a surprise research question from a very different area in the matter of seconds.
Byline
Being in the academia for years, and worse, decades, especially in the setting where you have to manage teaching, research, meetings, proposal writing, and what not, conditions you into becoming better and better with multitasking. In other words, the time you need to switch contest reduces with the experience gained.
As in many other soft skills, the more you do it, the better you become. And yes, it's a valuable skill in my opinion.

As for the conference stuff, I remember a quote from a biography novelisation of a world-class mathematician--an anecdotical evidence. In his later years he slept in in the talks, but he could allow himself this, because he grasped the idea of a talk much faster than the presenter could unfold it. So he slept until the applauses and still could ask meaningful questions after that.

A greater component in the example you give is 90% familiarity and 10% preparation.
If I am in a conference about a field of my expertise, I might have already some questions beforehand, which may or not be handled by the presentation.
As any other kind of meeting, it also helps doing some previous preparation and write down some possible questions I would like to see answered.
Being also with the laptop can mean many things. As for me:

it can mean I have loads of work or urgent matters, and would not be there otherwise, and I am mostly in listening-mode only;
I can be there just checking facts or related data in the Internet (done mostly with the phone nowadays);
or it can just mean that particular talk does not really interest me, and I will be taking advantage of time, drifting into mode 1)


text:
Issues with Former Academic Advisor
I'm currently a sophomore in undergraduate college who is just recently became a business administration major and I was undeclared for my freshman year and part of my sophomore year. Once my old advisor signed my paperwork about changing majors, I asked him when I would be graduating since I was genuinely curious and to reaffirm a fact that he said in an earlier appointment that I would graduate in the winter semester. However, he stated that I would need a fifth year and proceeded to harshly demand why I took classes in CJA, education, and had taken other gen ed's. When I reminded him that he did say I would graduate in the winter semester, he did not believe me and told me to give up on graduating in the spring with my other fellow classmates. I explained to my former advisor my reasons why I took said classes, because I was undeclared, yet he refused to believe me. To be honest, I was caught off guard by his behavior since in my last appointment with him, he was cordial and polite towards me. After my appointment with him, I began to lose self confidence in my choice for this major and I was confused by his harsh attitude towards me. After that harsh exchange, I transferred to a new advisor who is helpful and keeps me motivated but I am still bothered because I do not know why did my former advisor decide to say those harsh words to me. Any ideas behind my former advisor's behavior?

When he said you would graduate "in winter semester", was this based on a specific plan as to what classes you would need to take and when?  Did you double-check this plan against the graduation requirements in the catalog, and the schedule of planned course offerings?  Did you stick to the plan?

He probably had no idea when you could graduate and hadn't bothered to check / make a plan for the new major.

He said I would graduate in the winter semester judging by the classes I am taking in the fall semester which are all classes for this major and due to how much credits I have taken over the course of my college. Thanks for pointing that out Nate!

Why do you assume we know what "CJA" is? -1.

CJA is Criminal Justice, I do apologize.

Any ideas behind my former advisor's behavior?

Maybe he is a bozo. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he misunderstood the situation. What does it matter? You have found a new advisor and moved on with your life.
I would have just voted to close ("help me guess what he was thinking" questions are off-topic here), but I think there is a real issue in your post, and I think it's this line:

I asked him when I would be graduating since I was genuinely curious

You should not be "asking" this question! As you've discovered, advisors make mistakes all the time -- it's very common for undergraduate students to stay longer than they expected (and pay extra) because their advisor made a mistake. Instead, you should look up all the classes you need for your major (including gen eds) and make a plan for when you will take each of them. Your advisor (the good one) can help you with this, but any mistakes will hurt you, not your advisor, so it's on you to get this right.
Good luck!

Thank you so much!!! I really do appreciate it! The only reason why I asked was to have a rough estimate of when I will graduate.

I can think  of  ONE  reason,  no  TWO  reasons  for  this  kind  of  behavior.  Business  administration  is  a  DEGREE PROGRAM, NOT  A MAJOR,.  is  the  first  reason.   You   are   going  to HAVE  to   declare  a  major OFFICIALLY  in   B.B.A  degree  program  at  some  point.
Maybe  he  honestly  forgot   he  told you that   you  would    graduate  in   the  "winter'  semester.   but  there   really  is NO SUCH THING   as  winter  semester  on  semester   academic  calendar.     there   are   winter  QUARTERS..  There   are  Fall   spring   and   simmer   semesters.   Not  ALL  colleges  have  commencement  (graduation)  ceremonies  for  all   semesters  or  quarters.I   graduated  from  graduate   school  on  July   29.   i WALKED   commencement  in  MAY   because  i had  successfully  orally  defended  my master's  thesis.  but  i  did NOT  graduate  until  i handed  in  the  library copies  of my  master's  thesis  into  the  graduate  college.
IF you  changed  your ENTIRE   DEGREE PROGRAM.  you need  to  ask  THAT   academic  adviser   when  you   can  graduate.   and you also need  to  ask   WHEN and  how  to officially  DECLARE  a major, management    accounting,  m,   finance  or  information  systems in  that  degree program.
Business  administration IS NOT A MAJOR.
YOU   are  the one   who is  responsible  for  seeing  that you  take ALL  the  courses  for your  DEGREE PROGRAM   and   WHEN you  take  those   courses to  determine  WHEN you  can  graduate,  Your academic  adviser  or  advisers  is NOT   responsible  for  this.
Academic   advisers  are human  beings  too.    You have  NO IDEA   what  they  go home  too.  most  families  have  at  least  ONE   dysfunctional    family member   and  sometimes MORE  than  one.  There  can  be  handicapped   children  or  grand  children   as  well.   I  should  know,  because  i  was   a university  faculty  dependent,   and  iv'e  been   type  1  diabetic   since  I  was  2  years  old. SOME   faculty  are  homeless.
Talk   to your  current  academic  adviser   as  soon  as  possible  and  ask   when  and how  to  officially  declare  a major.

A lot depends on where the original poster goes to school. Some places do have "Business Administration" as an undergraduate major in itself. Some places have a (shorter) winter term in addition to the fall and spring semesters. But you're universally right that "Academic advisers are human beings too." :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to cite a paper that looking for a journal for publication
I am working on my second paper (as phd projects) which is an extension of my first paper. For my first paper, I will send it to a journal very soon. As I know acceptance of a paper by a journal is not an easy journey. Therefore, may I need to submit my paper for different journals (not at the same time) until it can find a place. My question is, how can I cite my first paper in my second one. I need to submit them at a very close time. For example, if I submit my first paper in this week (for example) then I may send the second one into two weeks (two weeks after the first one is submitted).
Any help, please?

Does this assume the first paper will be published - how would you reference it if it was not published?

@SolarMike this is my question. My supervisor advised me to put it on the eprint service of my uni. However, most of the journal does not accept the work that has already put in the eprint.

So, if that first paper is not published, HOW would you reference it?

Is that mean, I do not cite it at all.

I vaguely remember notes on "unpublished" work here and there, but I can't remember where exactly.

"most of the journal does not accept the work that has already put in the eprint" - not true. At least in my field. What is yours?

I've certainly seen things like "manuscript, 1996" (year varies, of course) MANY times in bibliographies (at least in mathematics papers), and these google scholar searches indicate these are not unicorns: "manuscript 1996" (3360 hits), "manuscript 2005" (3830 hits), "manuscript 2014 (2850 hits), "manuscript 1984" (1780 hits), etc.

I have seen some references given as "to appear" and others as "in preparation".  At least give the author and tentative title.

You can submit the first paper to a pre-print sever such as arxiv. Once, it appears in arxiv as a pre-print, you will get a citation information, which can then be used in the second paper.
I don't see any other way of doing it unless it appears somewhere as a pre-print or a published article.
Further, if you are citing a small portion (such as a method or a result) of first paper, you can replicate the same thing in the second paper with a note saying

The initial approach of this method is to appear in the article entitled 'ABC Approach for ZYZ Analysis [draft]'.

The problem is that the journal does not accept any paper that appears in arxiv before submit to the Journal.

If the journal you've chosen doesn't accept papers previously published on preprint servers then you need to find a different journal. You can't have everything in this situation. If it's that crucial to submit everything in a short period of time then you've messed up your time management (trust me, I know that feeling). If you need to cite a lot of the work included in your first paper you have no other choice other than using a preprint server or waiting for it being greenlit and published – which probably is something between half a year to a year.
You can't cite unpublished work.

Not downvoting, but this answer has a strong conclusion, which is demonstrably not true, at least not universally. Secondly, this situation seems quite reasonable for an early PhD student, so I wouldn't call it poor time management or wanting to 'have everything'.

Journals in some fields do not accept preprints;such journals often allow you to include 'unpublished manuscript' in the reference. You should have the author list and title though. You may need to supply this unpublished work upon request. Sometimes, the journal may recommend that you include it as supplementary material.
There is an entire page dedicated to this here, do have a look.
In any case, take all your options to your supervisor and let him/her guide you into the decision.

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

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


text:
Do I have to mention that a dataset I use is present in another paper?
There are huge data sets available online, for example from KEEL. I read a paper in my field that used about 14 data sets from the KEEL repository. I used two of these datasets taken from the KEEL website. I am working on a related topic, but it is different. Must I mention that these two datasets were studied in another paper?

I'm not sure it a 'requirement' to mention previous discussions of a dataset, but I can't imagine why you would want to suppress this information.

@BruceET I thought it must be mention due to ethic role.

There is no rule of research ethics that tells you what papers you "must" cite in your own work --- this is a matter of using appropriate discretion to discern what literature is relevant to your paper, and what is not relevant.  Ultimately, you need to ask yourself whether the other paper is relevant to your own study.  Is it useful to your reader to know that these datasets were studied in this other paper?
It is generally desirable to draw a broad line here, and mention other papers that might assist the reader, even marginally, in understanding the data or research topic you are analysing.  However, if the other paper is using the data for a completely different purpose, you might legitimately decide that this is not relevant to your paper, and that it does not assist your reader.  In that case there is no reason to cite the other paper.

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


text:
Can a university provide information about a student's activities?
In the United States, if anyone, be it a relative, a colleague, potential employer, or colleague, requests to the pertinent department, in the university I study/ied in, certain information about myself, will they be able to have it?
Is all this information, such as grades, year, internships I applied to, if I live(d) in a fraternity or dorms, etc., under the same regulation; or does each of them have its own set of restrictions regarding disclosure?
Finally, does that still apply to international students and/or people who have already graduated and thus are no longer in the institution? There is indeed the Buckley Amendment (FERPA), but it only covers educational records.

In the US context, under the Federal Education Record Privacy Act (FERPA), students (whether they're international students or US residents/citizens) have a right to privacy.  This right begins when a student enrolls and continues even after a student graduates or otherwise leaves an institution.  In higher education, the student themselves has the right to privacy.  In K-12 education, the parents of a student have control over the privacy.
Under FERPA, information about a student consists of "Directory Information" as well as a broad variety of educational records that have stricter privacy controls.
The exact details of what constitutes directory information vary from campus to campus, but it can include name, address, phone number, email address, dates of attendance, degrees granted, etc.  Students have the right to restrict access to this information, but they must request that that this information is kept confidential.  In response to any request for directory information about a student who has requested confidentiality, an institution will simply not respond.  This can cause problems with potential employers confirming that you graduated with a particular degree and other situations where you might actually want to be acknowledged as a student.
Your other academic records are kept under much tighter control—under FERPA they won't be released without your explicit written permission.
So, depending on whether or not you have requested that your directory information be kept confidential, your institution might respond to a request by providing your directory information, or it might refuse to answer the request.  If the directory information is confidential, anyone who inquires about you should get an answer like "I can neither confirm nor deny that John Q. Doe is or was a student at Big State U."
There are certain exceptions to FERPA privacy rights, including situations where the student could be claimed as a dependent on the parent's income tax return, situations where university officials have a legitimate need to access the information, etc.

Great response. In the last case, what kind of information might be given?

Also note that each college has its own definition of "directory information," and for instance the University of Virginia includes country of citizenship, names of parents or guardians, and expected graduation date in that list. Here are some of the regulations on when information is given out, and my quick summary is: to parents in certain cases, for lawsuits or law enforcement, and to qualified educational institutions, for the purpose of applying, enrolling, and transferring.

"In the last case, what kind of information might be given?"  (1) Student has private directory information: "I can neither confirm nor deny that person is or was a student"  (2) Student with public directory information: "John Doe is a math major in the class of 2020, is a member of the cross country team and is a member of fraternity XYZ."  (3) Person has never been a student: "I can neither confirm nor deny that person is or was a student."

As far as I know yes - they are able to verify and check certain details of your educational career such as grades, year of matriculation and graduation etc. However, I am not so sure information about internship, dorm details are readily available as it may fall under data overreach.
Since you mentioned 'Buckley Amendment' - could you also clarify if you're asking in the specific country context?

Editted, USA-related.


text:
Academic publishing: why placing figures on top/bottom of pages in single-column layout?
When you turn in a manuscript to an academic publisher, they may insist (referring to their style guide and publication process) that all figures are placed on top/bottom of the manuscript's pages rather than exactly where you need them (e.g., in the middle on one page and on top on another page). Why? Assuming single-column layout and that no huge line stretching, no huge vertical gaps, and no vertical overflows occur, what good reasons could exist nowadays for figures to be moved out of the very place where you need them?
An example could be the figures in the CSP book: they are placed typically where the reader needs them rather than always at the top/bottom of the pages.

Partly custom. Partly because having a figure messing with my reading / the flow of text is jarring?

I don't remember having to change figure placement due to a style guide. However, I have placed numerous figures to the top/bottom of a page to avoid using space for the top/bottom margin. Page limits are a nasty thing.

On the technical side, you might be interested in this question at TeX.SE. It is not really about placing images close to text, but rather about being able to have them a bit down from top or a bit up from the bottom.

"exactly where you need them" You write papers for the readers, so it does not seem important where you "need" (or want) them. I, as a reader, prefer it (need it?) when the figures do not interupt the text. Also note that not all images/illustrations in a text need to be typeset as figures (off course, depending on the style guide). Also, I think this question is off topic.

Since you refer to electronic formats, it might be relevant that several journals now offer an HTML format which is effectively a single page. In this case the figures seem to be very close to where they are referenced in the text. Usually at the end of the paragraph, but it can even be at the end of the sentence

Consider a page structured like this:

where A, B, C, D are columns of text. In such a case, should one read in the order A–B–C–D, or A–C–B–D? For me, it's natural to read in order texts that are close to each other – so here: A–B–C–D. So I'm always annoyed when the text makes no sense because I read it in an incorrect order. The same applies for a layout like this:

where the text nearest to A is C.
In case of this layout:

the page seems too divided – the continuity between A and B is broken. Also, it doesn't look nice when A consists of 15 lines, and B of only 2 lines (or vice versa): the reader could miss the shorter block, and – again – be annoyed that the text makes no sense. So, one wants to have a layout that will be easiest for the reader to follow.
And the layout when the figure is embedded in the text (e.g., with LaTeX's wrapfigure) can be sometimes found in books – I guess journals decided that this would be too distracting in an article which is usually very condensed.

+1 To me the only figure that could logically go mid page would be one that is half the width of a column and this must. This works for small illustrations. I've occasionally also seen some that will put a figure in the middle of the page, generally art history in nature. They work too especially when bring included anywhere else would result in excessive whitespace

@MdAyquassar - those 5 lines still break the flow of reading. Multi-column equations, usually less than 5 lines, are pretty bad also.

I do not get the argument why it is bad for single column layout. IF A and B are a continuous text, then there is no need to put the figure in between, but if a paragraph ends that even refers to the following figure, the reader would stop and have a look at the picture anyway.

"the continuity between A and B is broken" - wait, what? So a reader is supposed to read A, jump somewhere else (top or bottom of the page) to look at Figure whose content is referred to in A and/or a prerequisite for B, and then returns to the end of A to proceed to B? Now that breaks the continuitiy. Your assessment may indicate a misconception, though, in that possibly, there indeed is no continuity between A and B by design. Instead, consider the case when the only intended continuity is from A to Figure and from Figure to B.

The flow of reading you want to have is like the one for regular equations in a mathematical text:

For some simple illustration of a concept (like most figures in the textbook you are referencing), this flow works fine, and it makes sense to place the figure exactly where it is needed.
Now, for the vast majority of figures in scientific papers it is rather this (also see Figure 1 below):

You read a piece of text which describes that some data was obtained.
You look at plot that summarises the data in graphical form.
You look at the figure caption to understand what was plotted and maybe learn some technical details about the plot or the data acquisition.
You go back and forth between figure and caption until you understand what’s going on and can easily extract a piece of information.
You try to grasp the main points of the figure.
You go back to the text, which describes and interprets the data and at first frequently refers to particular aspects of the data for which you may want to take another look at the figure, but you do not have to. For example the figure below is not so complicated that you may not need to look at it again to remember what this point references.
The text continues about something else.
The text possibly comes back to the figure at a later point.

Figure 1: Reading flow for a complex figure. The red line depicts the reader’s focus at a given time. The boxes depict what is on the reader’s mind. Numbers refer to stages of the reading flow as enumerated in the main text.

The first reference to such a figure will always be a major interruption of reading flow. Putting the figure not directly at this position but to the top or bottom of the same page is only a drop in the ocean in this respect. (I do acknowledge that the figure shouldn’t be pages apart.) However, in other respects, putting the figure at the top or bottom has advantages:

If somebody reads the text a second time and is already familiar with the figure (so they do not have to look at it at all) a figure at the middle of the page would pose an additional interruption of reading flow. A figure at the top or bottom does not do this as the page break already breaks the reading flow anyway (also see Corey’s answer). In this answer, the end of the long list is a similar unavoidable break of reading flow and a good position for the figure.
For some figures, there is no perfect position as it depends on the reader’s preferences when they first jump to the figure. Some like to read the paragraph describing how some data was obtained or the key points of interpretation first, others prefer to look at the figure as soon as they see it on the page and before it was even referenced in text. Some even look at all the figures before reading the actual paper.
If the reader has to jump between text and figure (point 6 above), it is slightly easier, as the top and bottom of the page provide better anchors for jumping to the figure.
If the reader is referred to the figure at a later point in the text (point 8 above), it is easier for them to locate the figure.

So, it does make sense for typesetters or style guides to default to figures on the top and bottom of the page as complex figures referenced from multiple locations are much more frequent in scientific papers. Exceptions from this are rare and robustly spotting them often requires a subject expert, which typesetters are not.

To add a bit to some of the other answers, and address some of the comments about 'short' figures in the middle of text, I've included below a screen shot of a mid-80's paper where several long equations required spanning the two column format.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it makes for a really ugly layout, and makes it really hard to read (even with the slight visual indications of where to go from the column-breaking lines). Like all stylistic choices, some people will prefer one, some another. But this page is just really hard to read.

While I agree that the typesetting on this page is not very nice, there are no figures (as I would understand them) here. And moving all equations to top and bottom would render the page incomprehensible. This example mostly seems to illustrate that double-column is not good if longer equations are required.

Examples like this are why I've never understood why physicists seem so fond of having double column journal layouts.  It's as if they want to say "check us out, our stuff is so beautiful and simple that the equations and such totally fit on less than half the page!", while in total denial that this is regularly not the case.  The resulting shenanigans to make things fit just makes the entire field needlessly harder to understand to me.  Do physicists find themselves having trouble understanding single column layouts, I wonder?

@Arno: For the purpose of this question, any types of floats may be treated the same, as the very same points that you make may apply to figures. The OP might want to clarify that in the question.

@O.R.Mapper Sure, but display equation shouldnt be floats.

@Arno: Well, an equation is a numbered thing that is usually referenced from the text and inserted somewhere outside of a paragraph. That is what I meant by "float".

If you are mainly interested in "nice-looking" pages, top and bottom figures are commonly considered more aesthetic.
Frequently, this causes a figure to be on a different page than the part of text that refers to it, which is not ideal for the reader. But this may not be so important for the type-setting people.
Another important thing is that you cannot guarantee that a figure can be placed at the place of usage (text flow might change due to reformatting, insertions, etc.). So you can never rely on a figure really being in the position where you use it. You may be tempted to use words like "the following figure", but you really shouldn't.

'You may be tempted to use words like "the following figure", but you really shouldn't.' - well, there are typesetting systems where the appropriate text can be generated.

The answers so far all raise interesting points regarding typesetting/page layout. However, there is one consideration they all miss: submitted manuscripts are often re-typeset by the publisher during production (even where you have used a template that looks like the final version). Consequently, just because the publisher asks you to put the figure there, that doesn't mean it will be there in the final version. Indeed, many publishers now have very limited formatting requirements (example) (or optional-only recommendations/templates).
Nevertheless, there are various reasons for the formatting requirements (however many or few) a journal may have. I'm not going to discuss OP's specific question ("why place figures at the top/bottom?"), because who knows why a particular publisher has a particular requirement, but I will discuss formatting requirements in general.

They account for how the publisher's computer systems will generate the manuscript that is sent to the reviewers
They are suggestions to ensure the reviewers receive something readable (note: not optimal)
To avoid breaking the publisher's templates
Use of a publisher's styles/templates streamlines production because it enables the automated identification of (e.g.) captions during production, and assists the production staff in identifying and formatting the manuscript.
They enable consistent, straightforward measurement of (e.g.) page limits.
(Where similar-to-final templates are used, which is not relevant to everything I said above, but is worth including) They allow the author to get an idea of the appearance of the published manuscript.

Usually a manuscript is typed with a typewriter. There is a difference between the correct format of submitted manuscript and the article in final printed form. That means, the figures and tables are shuffled. It is a common misconception to believe that authors are in control of layout. All formatting questions are answered by the journal editor. But the author has the obligation to do some pre-work for getting the optimal result. For example, he should write on the back of each figure the senior author name with a soft pencil and the word “top”. Top means, that the figure can be placed on top. If this will happen in the final printed forms, depends on many other decisions which are outside the scope of the author.

Source: page 16-20 Manuscript Guidelines for the Journal of Wildlife Management, 1988

Usually a manuscript is written in LaTeX, and the author can perfectly well ensure that it looks the way they intend. The question raised here is why layout editors may feel compelled to mess around with that.

Flagging this as NAA because the question clearly specifies “nowadays”. Even ignoring that, your answer does not address the question, which asked why and not who.

@MdAyquassar: it's the only answer that contains […] typographical reasons. – Honestly: Where? I do not see any typographical (or other) reasons, and I have some reason to believe that I am understand a thing or two about typography.

This could be improved by addressing what seems to be implicit: that this policy is a holdover from the days of typewriters.

@MdAyquassar: This is handmade typography. – It just means that the author had some impact on the decision (as opposed to none like nowadays). It doesn’t say why anybody would want to decide that way. For example, why couldn’t the author specify middle as a position?

@cactus_pardner: that this policy is a holdover from the days of typewriters – The mentioned typewriters are what the authors were instructed to use to produce a manuscript to submit; it’s not what the journals used for typesetting the actual paper. (Here is a non-paywalled article from the very journal in question so you can have a look yourself.) And even if that were the case, typewriters impose no special technical restrictions on placing figures in the middle of the page (it’s equally horrible everywhere).

This amounts to saying that there are no good reasons nowadays for many formatting rules. This is the most accurate answer to the question imho.

@SylvainRibault: I am getting the feeling that I am looking at a different answer than everybody else. Where does this answer even remotely say this or even hint at this? I can only guess that you assume this answer to imply that there were technical reasons to do this in 1988, but I really don’t see that (and if it did, this would be wrong, because it was quite possible to put figures everywhere in 1988).

@Wrzlprmft: I interpret the answer as a humoristic way of saying "of course there are no good reasons for these stupid rules". References to typewriters and soft pencils underscore the absurdity of the rules, and are not meant to give plausible historical explanations.


text:
Applying for second PhD after quitting first one after 2 years on same topic
I left my first PhD program after two years and after that took up a teaching job for two years and now I am planning to apply for the PhD on the same topic again.
In my first PhD i was not a failure , I took all advanced level courses and got decent grades. However my advisor who is a nice person otherwise works very fast and wants immediate results while since it is theoretical physics I was in general overwhelmed by the sheer amount of things I did not know and needed some time to adjust while the advisor just wanted to pick up topic and start working and had little patience for mistakes which I made a lot in the beginning. I got very little time to absorb things on my own and since I am mostly a self taught person it was more difficult for me to work as per his schedule. He advised me to change advisor however no one in our department was working on the same topic and changing advisor would have meant changing topic of my PhD which I was not willing to do. So I just quit my PhD ,took two years break , did projects with other postdoc , faculties of different universities and currently have four papers under my belt. Have very strong background on all advanced topics in Physics. And am extremely comfortable with research now ( something I was not during my first PhD since I have had time to absorb thing my way) I have managed to secure two letter of recommendations which are not from my ex advisor. Although we ended up on amicable terms , his opinion was that I am not going to make a successful researcher so we are not in contact anymore.
My question is
1.In SoP how do I exactly define the reason for quitting first PhD while I am looking for PhD on same topic second time as well.
2.How is the gap , quitting PhD going to affect my applications? What are my chances of getting selected.
I am mainly planning to apply to Europe.

My advice is not to get into the minutia but say "personal reasons".  Allude to a wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc.
It's not ideal, but doable.  (like anything.)


text:
How ethical is the practice of including spouses as co-authors when they are in the same field?
I've noticed many situations where a researcher will put their spouses as co-authors in a paper. This is commonly seen in situations where both spouses are in the same field. Valid collaboration between spouses is possible (and exist).
The question is not meant to attack spousal collaborations in academia. Simply put, this is just one possible example where a conflict of interest might arise (the same question can be placed in situations of parent-child and parent-sibling collaborations with no significant difference).
However, where does one draw the line in such a situation? What is stopping them from putting each other in every paper they write, effectively "doubling" their academic output? Whether we like it or not, publication metrics are used in fellowships, grants, awards, and many other situations in academia. In order for it to remain an objective metric requires the integrity of authorship to be upheld. When a PI is choosing authorship, they are responsible for not only themselves, but those in their own group, as well as their department and institution.
The situation with spouses (and other familial relationships) is somewhat unique in that the barrier for co-author contribution is far more easily passed, compared to two regular collaborating PIs. Not only are they often more readily available for collaborations, there is also a possibility of subconscious bias when evaluating the contributions of a significant other. There is also a greater possibility such a system can be gamed. For example, could such a possibility arise where a contribution which would otherwise be recognized in an acknowledgement be replaced by co-authorship due to a slight bias?
The issue is not whether or not spouses, family members or any other person should be allowed to be a co-author when they have made a valid contribution. The problem lies in whether or not the judgement of valid contribution can be made fairly without a conflict of interest by someone in that situation. Being aware of this, is it ethical to still make that decision? Is there a way to be unbiased without complete recusal?

It's as ethical as including siblings. Just adding someone because (s)he's a spouse, relative, friend, colleague, mentor, the guy you admire since childhood, a famous actress etc. (neither the question nor the answers would change if you asked about any of these) - is not. Adding someone because he contributed sth meaningful - it's unethical not to offer co-authorship. To wrap up - from false premises one can derive any conclusion one wants.

Right or wrong, many competitive applications in academia depend on publication metrics. My concern is that co-authoring with one's spouse is unethical since it can be abused to give an advantage (even if some people don't). Does this not constitute a self-dealing conflict of interest?

@Co3O4 A (regular) collaborator can surely fulfil the same role?

@Co3O4 Perhaps formulating the question differently will get to an answer that you're satisfied with, e.g., is it ethical for a group of researchers to always list each other as co-authors when they contribute the absolute minimal amount necessary to satisfy the co-authorship threshold?

In what way can it be abused to gain an advantage? The only ways it can be abused in my mind are the typical ways about undeserved credit - but this can happen at any time and is not specific to being a spouse.

Just because there are other avenues of abuse doesn't necessarily invalidate this one. In other areas, (such as hiring and peer-review) it is good practice to recuse oneself if they have a close relationship with the other party. However based on the responses it seems that this is unnecessary for the problem of authorship. In that case I would defer to the opinion of the academic community.

"I've noticed many situations where a researcher will put their spouses as co-authors"... How have you noticed? Maybe you are assuming the whole world has the same naming conventions as the US?

@corey979: Please do not post answers as comments.

@Miguel I am not making any assumptions based on same last name.

It would be ethical if the spouse contributed to the research as much as any contributing author. If such is the case then there is no problem. Just being in the same scientific field does not make one deserving of co-authorship or an informed subject in the project. Say that you and your spouse are biologists. You do educational research and your spouse does genetic engineering. Should you write each other's papers because you're both biologists? I could see spousal co-authorship potentially leading to marital manipulation: "Honey, I'll make you scientific co-author if you do ____ for me?"

A famous example in computer science is abstract interpretation discovered by Patrick & Radhia Cousot (husband and wife). They worked both on it

@Co3O4: coauthorship can be abused in systems that base evaluation on index weighted paper counts, and it frequently is, but there is no reason to suppose that this is any more likely because of a spousal relationship. My wife and I are both mathematicians and we have never coauthored a paper. If we ever did, we would certainly both sign it. As an aside, it is really a sad commentary on how intellectually debased the current institutional academic environment has become that someone feels it necessary to ask this question (I understand why it has been asked).

I know a psychologist. I like to joke that there was no school of statistics at her university, so she did the next best thing, took a mathematician and trained him to do the statistical analyses for her. A few papers later she married me. We by now have 20+ coauthored papers, and we both did work indeed on each and every one of them. I am not downvoting, but given a lot of work that the two of us have invested, I would like you to understand that I am not amused by the insinuation that our coauthorships can only be "somewhat justified".

To put @Dawn's point slightly differently: "What is stopping them from putting each other in every paper they write, effectively "doubling" their academic output?"  What is stopping any given pair of researchers in the same field from doing the same thing?

"the barrier for co-author contribution is far more easily passed [for spouses], compared to two regular collaborating PIs." Got research to back that up? If not, why not make it your next subject to study? Because otherwise, it sounds pretty unfounded.

Your question is based on one assumption (that you spell out):  "the barrier for co-author contribution is far more easily passed [for spouses], compared to two regular collaborating PIs.".
"Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man." -- The Dude
As pointed out in a comment, ethical people don't draw the line in different places depending on the situation (at least for the case in question). The line is already drawn by the ethics principles they follow.
So, to answer your question, it is ethical to include spouses when the spouses contributed to the paper, it is not when they didn't. Exactly like including anyone else.

I take the quotation to mean that spouses have frequent opportunity to collaborate, and therefore, they legitimately pass the threshold for joint authorship more often. This doesn't mean that the threshold is lower. (Of course I agree with your conclusion.)

+1. "ethical people don't draw the line in different places depending on the situation (at least for the case in question)" is pretty amusing. :-)

"...ethical people don't draw the line in different places..." The follow up question would then probably be: How many ethical people are there?

There is nothing unethical about choosing a spouse (or friend, advisee, sibling, etc) when choosing a research collaborator.1

In other areas, (such as hiring and peer-review) it is good practice to recuse oneself if they have a close relationship with the other party.

There's a fundamental difference between these situations. When you are serving on a hiring committee or refereeing a paper, you are acting on behalf of an organization (in this case, your employer or a journal, respectively). You have an obligation to that organization to recuse yourself if your judgment is clouded. On the other hand, if two people decide to collaborate on research, each is making that decision on their own behalf. If a spouse, friend, or advisee is a sub-optimal choice for collaboration, then they will bear the professional harm.

What is stopping them from putting each other in every paper they write, effectively "doubling" their academic output?

If spouses collaborate with each other on every paper they write, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about listing each other as co-authors. (In fact, to not do so would be unethical.) But this wouldn't increase their academic output anymore than collaboration with other people.2

The situation with spouses is somewhat unique in that the barrier for co-author contribution is far more easily passed, compared to two regular collaborating PIs.

Yes, if two researchers are married, and they have similar research interests, then it probably is easier for them to collaborate with each other than otherwise. However, there is nothing unethical with collaborating with people with whom it is convenient to collaborate. We wouldn't chide a researcher for collaborating with another researcher from their institution or the surrounding area.
Also, I think you may be underestimating the career disadvantages for an academic to be being married to an academic with similar research interests. It's hard enough for married academics to solve the two-body problem--frequently, one spouse ends up leaving academia altogether. It can be even harder for couples with similar research interests, because smaller departments ask themselves questions like "Do we really want to devote two tenure lines to specialists in operator algebras?"
1 I'm talking about small ad-hoc collaborations, not the large-scale formal organizations that exist in some fields, such as particle physics.
2 Parenthetically, depending on the situation, it might not be a great idea for a married couple to always collaborate with each other. But that would hold for any two researchers who routinely collaborate with each other.

Related to some issues you bring up: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/45706/19607

So you think that the glaringly obvious conflict of interest here is of no concern whatsoever?

My point is that, when it comes to choosing collaborators (again, assuming small ad-hoc collaborations, not formalized labs or organizations), there is no conflict of interest, because there's only one interest, which is your own.

@PersonX Respectfully disagree. The assumption that the PI only has her/his own interest at stake, disregarding that of the other contributors of a project, the people in her/his lab, her/his department, and her/his funding agencies when publishing a paper is not reasonable.

@Co3O4, I think we might be coming at this from different academic cultures. I'm in mathematics, where many collaborations are ad-hoc and not formally organized. If you are making a decision on behalf of a formal lab group or other formalized organization, then my comments don't apply (see footnote #1).

It's exactly as potentially (un-)ethical as putting anyone else on your papers, with the small difference that people will notice and gossip about it far more quickly.
At least in my field, people often mention s.o. in the acknowledgements for "helful discussions", giving valuable input, proofreading, etc. In reverse conclusion, don't put your spouse in the list of authors just because you talked about it over dinner and he or she gave some insightful remarks or pointed out various shortcomings in your reasoning.

"don't put your spouse in the list of authors just because you talked about it over dinner". Or anyone else!

Deleted long and escalating digression in the comments. Please stick to the post and stay nice.

It appears that the OP is confounding the Law with the Police. As the other answers indicated, the same standards should apply (that's "the Law").
But then the OP asks

What is stopping them from putting each other in every paper they
  write?

...and this is about "the Police" and whether it is practically feasible to policing in an effective way such a situation and making sure that "the Law" is upheld, apart from the "inner ethics police" a person carries.
It is not unreasonable to argue that unethical behavior here is structurally facilitated, and so that we statistically expect that in case of spouse co-authors, more cases of bogus co-authorhsip will/may exist, compared to when no personal relationship/kinship exists. But as with any plausible argument, it still remains to be scientifically explored and tested.
In any case, bogus co-authorship is not the only "unintended" negative effect of having people grouping themselves at a personal level and not only as "members of a society". Also, I suspect there are also some positive consequences of organizing our lives around such little tribes, so once more, it dreadfully comes down to cost-benefit analysis.

What is stopping them from putting each other in every paper they write, effectively "doubling" their academic output?

Reputation. I think a lot of people will be skeptical about this very question, and that in itself is a drawback. People may wonder, when siblings or spouses or parents and children publish together, whether they were actually both pulling their own weight. I would not be surprised if many readers assume that more of the contribution came from one than the other (based on which name they recognized, who had a more prominent position, or other factors) while knowing nothing about how the work for that specific paper was conducted.
I have submitted to conferences with someone who happens to share my last name and is of the opposite gender. I have no doubt that some people would speculate that we were married, and I wondered at the time whether that would change their perceptions of the work. (The reviews were double-blind, so I did not worry about that for acceptance to the conference.)
To avoid untoward assumptions about whether it's all just the work of one partner, I imagine that both people should strive to publish separately as well, or with other collaborators, and/or they should have so much output that it would not be feasible for one person to secretly do all the work.

The situation with spouses is somewhat unique in that the barrier for co-author contribution is far more easily passed, compared to two regular collaborating PIs.

Sadly I cannot remember who this was, but there was a husband-and-wife team who frequently published together, and when one died, the other kept their names on papers, posthumously, for years until that part of the research agenda that had been in the pipeline was complete. My sense was that they worked so closely in developing the ideas over the years--as well as applying for funding and conducting the research--that the deceased spouse's intellectual contribution remained clear far after their death.
Finally, there was an interesting little paper about this in an answer to the question Kimball linked to. The authors, four unrelated individuals all named "Goodman," look into people who publish with the same last names, and they also point out that there would presumably not be the same "et al." penalty in this case, since both/all authors "sound like" the first author whenever it is mentioned.

If the spouse did not contribute sufficiently so as to qualify for authorship, it is unethical to include the spouse.  Conversely, f the spouse   contributed sufficiently so as to qualify for authorship, it is unethical to NOT include the spouse.
That said, spouses working on the same project can certainly create uncomfortable situations.  My preference for working in a group with such an arrangement would be an externally approved and monitored management plan.

The fact of the matter is that - also due to common interests as a couple (especially when married is like a business) - the spouse would almost always be seen as significant contributor. It's not that there will be attempt to pretend or lie for the spouse's contribution. The PI will always value even the slightest thing that the spouse will do. He/she is chosen as a lifetime companion for a reason. So, it is almost inevitable that even under the best of the intentions, spouse's contribution will be overvalued and someone will feel injustice.

You are suggesting that every married academic will "almost inevitabl[y]" treat their spouse and field unethically, which is a pretty offensive thing to say.

You’re making a way too strong claim — but the fundamental point is right: there is a potential conflict of interest, and it’s laughable to suggest, as some other answers do, that ethical people are above any suspicion of favouritism or unconscious bias, or that unethical people might not intentionally abuse such a situation.

-1 on the comments: (the PI will "always" value the slightest thing that the spouse will do) and that it is 'almost inevitable'; hmmm

I agree with @AzorAhai that poor ethics in this situation is an inevitability, but I do think the appearance of conflict needs to be dealt with up front, preferably through the university mechanisms that deal with conflicts.

@Scott You misread my comment, I said the opposite, in fact.

Yes, @AzorAhai -- actually, I had it right, but meant to say "not an inevitability"


text:
Paper by different authors published same method as a previous paper
My colleagues and I published a new method in a journal last year. A week ago, another group published a nearly-identical method in the same journal. The approach is the same, just with different notation.
I believe this was not malicious on the part of the other group and probably was simply due to a lack of a literature search. Are there any actions we should take?

When did your paper come out in the journal, and when was their paper submitted to the journal? They could well have not known about your paper.

Our paper came out in the middle of 2017 (and has been on the arXiv since late 2016). The new paper appeared published last week (April 2018) to be printed in an June issue of the journal.

So, when was their paper submitted to the journal?

2 months after our paper was available online

@westt well, you can't blame them for not finding your paper on arXiv.

@TheDoctor Why not?  A due-diligence search of recent literature—including arXiv—just before submission seems like a reasonable expectation.

I would contact the authors first, pointing them to your paper and simply asking if they are familiar with it, and indicating – with no judging/accusing comments! – that their approach is similar to your published work. Then two things might happen:

They will contact the editor and he will handle it; either they will have bad luck and his decision will be to reject the paper, or simply there will be a "note added in proof". In the latter case, you'll gain a citation, too.
They will neglect your e-mail, either not answering at all, or giving some vague excuses that you might feel don't lead anywhere. In such cases, write directly to the editor of the journal, pointing him to your article and emphasizing the similarities between the two and that yours was published long before their submission (and maybe noting also that your two groups haven't collaborated).

An option might be to also write a short comment (I guess 1 page will be enough) to be posted on arXiv, just so that the community knows. But first contact the authors, then the editor (if necessary) – in the end it's his decision what to do with the submitted paper. I think there's only a slight chance that in the end you won't be satisfied with how the thing was handled – at least you will know to think twice before submitting to this journal again, and the community will be warned by your comment on arXiv. But don't jump too far ahead, first see how the situation will be dealt with.

I'm not sure 2 months qualifies as "long before their submission".  And, the fact that it was the same journal for both makes #2 a little weird - likely the editor was happy with both papers, and may feel that they are further apart than the OP believes (rightly or wrongly).

@JonCuster Well, I emphasized a few times that the editor is to make the final decision. But there might have been two different editors handling those two papers etc. There's no harm in writing an e-mail or two. Ah, and time is relative ;)


text:
How can I judge reputation of a publisher? Any rankings?
Correct me if I'm wrong: identity of publishers affects quality of a publication. E.g., OUP and CUP feels like the most reputable and trustworthy in the UK, as Oxbridge are globally renowned.
But how can unknown publishers be judged, like those unconnected with any top universities?

Like, those that are not in the list of predatory OpenAccess publishers?

Are you talking about publishing a book?  (Presumably that is a different question than publishing a research paper in a journal.)

@GEdgar Yes; this question involves books more than research papers.

There are no rankings of publishers I'm aware of (what criteria would you even use?); however, my experience is that academics also barely care about the prestige of the publisher. If there are any publishers at all whose names carry weight, it's CUP and OUP.
Just make sure not to publish with a predatory publisher and you should be set.

My experience is that prestige of book publishers matters a lot. What is your field? Is it a "book field"?

I suspect this varies a lot by field. In philosophy it does matter where one publishes; a 2013 poll on a philosophy blog gave the top 7 English-language publishers as:

Oxford University Press
Cambridge University Press
Harvard University Press
Routledge (Taylor & Francis)
Princeton University Press
MIT Press
Wiley-Blackwell

In my subfield, due to the closer connections with mathematics and computer science, a lot of good volumes come out with Springer, which is nowhere near the top of this list. So even knowing the field is not sufficient to be able to determine what the best publishers are.
As with most questions of this sort, you are probably best off consulting senior members of your field, and seeing where the stars of your field publish.

I would look at the portfolio of the publisher: are there any/enough books in there  on a comparable topic and level as the manuscript I want to publish?

for journals:
journals have a number that is drived by the sitations of their articles. I don't remember the name. it is something with factor or impact. you can check journals' reputation of the publisher. also, I would recommend you to read fiew articles on the journal and if you find it quality. you should think publishing in there. I think that we need quality papers in every journal and one way to do that is to publish in less known journals or publishers in general.


text:
What is a tutor in Australia (UniMelb)? Is it like a TA? What are the responsibilities?
I will be starting my PhD at University of Melbourne this October and I have questions about the tutor position. Is this like a teaching assistant (TA) position in other university systems? What does the role of tutor entail? How are these jobs awarded, is it difficult to get one, and how much does it pay?

Perhaps you should contact the housing dept of the Uni if they have one - we don't have that info... For TA'ing then check with your supervisor, or the head of dept... as it may be controlled and shared on some basis... final year phd's TA 3rd year students etc...

Hi! I edited out the housing question because that's definitely off-topic. I'm hoping that you may get some good answers about what "tutor" means in the Australian system. (You can [edit] your question further if needed.)

In Australia, a tutor is typically a casual academic staff member who runs "tutorial" sessions for classes of undergraduate students (typically 20-30 per one-hour class). Tutorial sessions form part of undergraduate coursework, however attendance may or may not be mandatory depending on the course and institution.
Tutorial sessions are normally used to review concepts covered in lectures, go through practice questions, or sometimes students use these classes as a place to collaborate on assignments.
Graduate students can apply to be a tutor for a particular course subject to availability (number of existing tutors, number of students enrolled, etc.). The best way to enquire would be to email course coordinators well in advance of the start of semester to enquire as to whether positions are available.
The pay rate for tutors varies widely, but it would normally be in the ball park of $40 - $100 per hour. The high section of the pay range (e.g. being paid $100 for a one hour session) normally assumes you are also spending time preparing material for the sessions.
Contact your PhD supervisor as they may be able to provide advice and contacts to get your foot in the door.
Side note: In addition to "tutors" in Australia we also have "laboratory demonstrators" who guide groups of 10-20 students through hands-on laboratories. If you are a STEM major you may be able to get a position as a laboratory demonstrator as well. These positions pay less than a tutor, however are more widely available.


text:
Can I ask reviewers (via the editor) whether they lost track halfway through the paper?
I submitted a paper to a journal in linguistics. It was accepted pending some minor revisions w.r.t. typesetting and a few sentences that had to be reformulated. The reviewers gave eight comments on the introductory section, comprising roughly 1/3 of the paper, and only one on the rest. On the one hand, this may be expected, because I am less proficient with the broader context of the introduction and had most difficulties writing that section. On the other hand, I'm slightly worried that the reviewers lost track of the train of thought halfway through the paper.
I would like to know if the reviewers got lost in the paper, and what I might do to improve it if necessary. However, I have not found a good way to ask the editor. I don't want to suggest that the paper should not be published or that the reviewers may have been lazy or stupid. How can I ask for more feedback? Or should I just assume that no comments means well written?
I do not know how many people reviewed the paper; the editor aggregated the comments before sending them to me.

Given the ending of your title, repeated at the end of your first paragraph perhaps they have a point...

« whether they lost track halfway the paper » is not phrased correctly : you could have said « whether they lost track halfway through the paper » or other variations, so my point was, and is, perhaps the reviewers have a point.

@SolarMike thanks, English is not my native language - fixed. (I'm still not sure what the point the reviewers would have would be, though.)

This sounds like you wrote a good paper with some minor problems in the background/introduction that need fixing/polishing.
If reviewers get lost they should (and most likely will) mention that, and make you work a lot more. If, however, the editor and all reviewers have nothing to complain, your paper should be alright.

I don't think you should ask this of the editors or reviewers at all.  It's their job to evaluate the paper for publication, but it's not their job to help you improve it. At this point, they've given you all the comments they felt were necessary.
If you want more feedback on the paper, or suggestions on how it can be improved, then ask someone else - colleagues, collaborators, other researchers in the field.   But not the reviewers.


text:
Consequences of taking 5 years to graduate with a double major?
What effect might it have on my chances of getting into a graduate school and my employment prospects if it took 5 years (or 4.5 years) to graduate?
My plan currently is to take a double major in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering, while going through all the Japanese and Russian language courses.
If I were to do it in four years, I would have to take 4 semesters with 6 classes and 4 semesters with 7 classes, as well as all 19 available classes from the summer and winter sessions available to me. My university does not allow 7 classes in a semester without permission and everyone I know who's been to college has told me that it would be too much.
If I were to do it in 5 years, I could do 9 semesters with 5 classes and 1 semester with 6 as well as 3 summer sessions and 5 winter sessions. The 4th summer session could serve as a cushion in case of limited availability or study abroad programs/interships/co-ops.
I will be attending my first semester at Hofstra University this fall, and am hoping to work for NASA or SpaceX as an engineer while pursuing a masters part time, if that information helps.

Good luck! My general sense is that 5 years for a BA/BS is easily acceptable by many programs and employers, especially if there's an obvious good reason for it (e.g. a double major, international study, internship, language classes--basically all the things you've mentioned).

If you'd be studying a lot of Japanese/Russian, then would you be planning on earning minors or majors in those fields as well?

What about 7 years? I have a B.S. in computer science and a B.A. in French and Applied Linguistics. I don’t think I’ll have any problems entering graduate school (I’m currently teaching English in France). But, I have no idea since I haven’t applied and have just been doing freelance software development on the side for travel money. All in all I think that if you take a really long time to graduate, committees might question your motivation. But that’s not the case for you and I highly suggest you pace yourself. I was studying/working 80 hours per week for 5/7 years... major burnout.

Your circumstances are very different than when someone does a single-major program in five years. Two majors—in this case, both in engineering!—and effectively two minors (if you do years of Japanese and Russian) are non-trivial, and as you mentioned, trying to do it in four years would require extensive "credit overloading." If you can afford to do so, it would be better to do things well in five years rather than rush in four years and do a mediocre job, if your goal is to go to graduate school in the long term.

While I agree with aeismail that it isn't good to rush things, I don't feel your plan is optimal.
In particular, the number of credits you are talking about will be sufficient for a masters degree, and it is perfectly feasible to change subjects within engineering between BS and MS.  You'll need to coordinate and get advisors in both departments during your undergraduate years even while you are officially working only on one degree at a time, but you should plan for a BS in 4 years and an MS in the fifth.  Whether you pivot from ME to EE or vice versa really doesn't affect the feasibility.
As long as you plan for this at least from your sophomore year and use your electives to prepare, you should be able to finish the masters in one year (conventionally a switch between departments will add an extra semester, you will avoid this).
A dual BS in five years will be perfectly acceptable, but a BS/MS in five years covering two engineering disciplines is better yet.

That last line makes lots of sense, especially with more institutions offering accelerated 5yr BS/MS programs that let you take grad courses during your undergrad and benefit from dual-crediting. As for OP, I'd also explore ME/EE Bachelor's followed by perhaps IE.


text:
Condolences from a student to a professor
I have a professor I really care about and our professional relationship as a student/teacher has been growing in a positive direction. The professor has been really kind to me in many ways including giving personal/academic advise and providing motivation towards certain goals.
My professor has been gone, without word, for an extended period of time...
I got stupid and curious, and using Google, I figured out the professor lost an important loved one.
I now feel ashamed because I know I violated the professors privacy; however, now that I know my first instinct is of empathy and to give my condolences to my professor.
Now the more I think about it, I don’t want to say anything so that I don’t disrespect our relationship, but I feel that giving my condolences is the “right” thing to do when someone you care about is in pain, but I only am aware of the situation because I already disrespected our relationship.
I’m frustrated and confused. Could any lecturers or professors give me some guidance?

What did Google reveal to you?  Was it a newspaper article, a university press release, or one of the professor's twitter posts?  If it was widely published information, the professor would understand how a student came to know about it.  If was the professor's own social media, well, then it's still "public", but maybe not as intentionally so.

The searches started out as "professor + lecture" then digressed to "professor + emergency", but then I realized family emergency, so then I searched for "professor + hometown area + obituary". I really was hoping to not find anything because I didn't want anything to be wrong, but I did find it, and it made me extremely sad.

I'm not sure that you 'violated the professor's privacy'. Googling his name seems altogether appropriate.
Still, I wouldn't say anything. Since he hasn't told you (and no one else has told you), it seems he doesn't want to discuss it with you. I would respect this. Thinking back to when I taught classes, I certainly would have appreciated the effort, but it also would make me just a tiny amount uncomfortable, particularly since I hadn't announced the death.
By the way, I'm assuming you're an undergraduate and you only know him as a teacher. If you are a grad student and he is a prof in your subfield, I still would err on the side of not saying anything, but it could go either way depending on the personalities involved.

Snooping around is a violation of privacy. This is rather evident from the fact that you would have felt "uncomfortable" because you "hadn't announced the death".

@NajibIdrissi It seems not absurd to me that the searches could have been done in good faith (maybe trying to find if the professor was visiting at another university), but unintentionally revealed more personal information. I think that's the context this answer is written in.

To double down on what @Science12345 said, work is often where people can escape the grief for a while by concentrating on something else. If you bring it up when they aren't prepared, they might well start crying in front of you, an awkward experience that's best avoided...

I agree that making specific reference to the information you found is a step too far - it took some Googling to figure it out, the professor hasn't shared it with you, and the professor may very well wish to keep their personal life and work life separate.
However I do think you could send an email simply noting that you've noticed the professor has been gone, you wish them well, and you appreciate their kindness, advice, motivation, etc. with a specific example or two. It always feels nice to know you've had a positive impact on someone, and it's a way for you to do something kind for someone who has been kind to you without violating their privacy.

This is a very kind and thoughtful advice.