text:
Using et al. for a last / senior author rather than for a first author
Suppose a paper has authors A, B, C, and D. The first author, A, isn't in academia anymore, and much of my work is inspired by the senior author, D. I've also only communicated with author D.
Can I say/write "author D et al."?
When I looked this up, "first author et al." is the recommended version, but I would rather prefer to say "author D et al."
This isn't for a formal paper submission, but rather for something like a blog post describing my recent findings, which I hope will be published in the near future.

If you used APA style the first citation of a work with three to five authors would require to include all authors anyway. It'd be helpful if you disclosed which citation style you are referring to.

Furthermore, citations don't have the primary use to tribute the authors, but to enable the reader to counter check the claims you've made with the original source.

I assume if you were to use "and others", it would be distinct enough from the usual citation conventions

What if author D also leaves academia? Citation is only about who wrote the paper. It is not about who is still available for questions. Since, this is not for a paper, you can provide additional information (e.g. that author A isn't available for communication due to him/her leaving academia, and that communication is possible with author D) in a accompanying footnote.

I think in an informal medium like a blog post, you could convey that author D is the main character in the “story” you are trying to tell while still maintaining proper citation standards by saying something like, “Author D and his/her colleagues (Author A, et al., 2018) have shown that...”

This is a great approach. One should stick closely to the conventions of referencing, but that doesn't mean that the surrounding prose has to be machine-like and ignore the level of contributions of the authors. We are indeed telling stories, and the references are just there to support that. I'd only suggest that this isn't limited to blog posts. There is no reason why this can't be done in formal journal articles and thesis writing (and indeed, it often is).

I often use this phrasing in the context of a talk, though I don't know if I've ever written it out. Refer to work in "the lab of Author D" and then point to citations with other first authors...makes a lot of sense in a field where the senior author is the one that is consistent and can unify a collection of related work.

@BryanKrause I have just written such text in a grant application  where I was trying to convey both the key result and the fact that the research team also includes the person who knows the magic to reproduce the key result.

Doesn’t this belittle the primary author though? How are they going to get the visibility and exposure?

The primary author is still getting cited, so I don't think it belittles them. I guess I was thinking (based on the OP) of a situation where "Author D" has been publishing in this field for many years and with many coauthors. So when referring to "Author D and colleagues," we're talking about the big picture. (And to that point, it might make more sense in cases where there are multiple citations in the parenthetical, not just one.)

Yes, I guess this can be (more) acceptable if there are many citations in the parenthesis, but for a single citation where A is the primary author, it is still unsettling to me that the main focus is on the D just because s/he is senior. Anyway, just an opinion.

Your feelings and the journal citation rules might not align the way you want them to be. Therefore, I suggest you stick with the accepted norms and go with author a et al., even if it is an informal conversation or blog.
Using any author other than the first author in citation would not only do injustice to that author, but would also be a disservice to the readers. Readers would probably be confused when trying to find the bibliography of that citation in the reference list.

I've informally run into trouble doing something analogous - with no ill intent - so yes, proper citation is the right way to go.

Agree that one should stick to citation conventions. One can, however, often simply insert phrasing around the citations that give credit to the senior team member, which is often more meaningful to the audience in the field. For example: "Work in this area was pioneered by Jean Smith in Tokyo (e.g. Jones et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2005)." Edit: actually just saw that the answer by @LarrySnyder610 below says much the same thing.

The only situation when this is common is if you're referring to multiple papers at once. However, even then you'd probably want to use formal citations in parentheses (like mentioned by LarrySnyder):
LAST AUTHOR et al. have done a lot of work showing phenomenon X (AUTHOR A et al., year; AUTHOR B et al., year).

Surely, that should be al. et Last Author. ;-)

+1, and also adding that this is even more appropriate if the paper in question has an 'equal authorship' clause, many of which do.

Not enough reputation to comment, hence writing as answer.
The other answers didn't address the "I've also only communicated with author D." part.
If that personal communication yielded information that is not in the paper, you can cite (in addition to the paper) "D: Personal Communication".

When using citations in an informal text, one often refers to papers in the form (Author A et al., 2018) mainly to make it easy for the reader to know which paper is being addressed without the need to scroll to the end and see the full list of citations (which you should always include, be it a blog post, Powerpoint slides, or a journal article).
In my field (computer science), it is common that people rarely produce multiple first author publications within one year, so referring to a paper as (Author A, 2018) usually narrows it down to a single publication. However, the last place in the author list is usually reserved for a PI/senior researcher, who has his name on dozens of papers every year. Referring to a paper as (Famous Researcher, 2018) tells very little about the actual paper you are talking about.
As long as you care about the reader, I would use the first author's name.

It just isn't that much work to name everyone.  Think of all the work all the authors put into that paper.  We can all afford to spend one extra second reading all of their names.  And that extra second might make someone recognize the name on a file and result in someone getting a job they otherwise wouldn't have.  There's no justification for using "et al."

Says a mathematician were the typical style is [1] and no names.

Try to list all the names of ATLAS collaboration, even when it is 5 or 6 people it starts to be quite awkward in the text. More than 30 and it is a problem even if the reference list.

Number citations are bad, I agree!  For large collaborations use the name of the collaboration.

Yeah, no. An intro paragraph with more than a citation or two, each with 7+ authors quickly becomes completely unreadable if you type them all out.

It can become awkward to name everyone. In some experimental fields it is not unheard of to have dozens of authors. The citation format then becomes unwieldy.

@StrongBad It is relatively common to list the names when discussing results and/or have [ABC] style citation, but it is uncommon to use "et al." in my experience. Although number citations are incredibly common and not every citation gets a discussion. Although pure math tends to have fewer authors than the sciences

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Authors' contributions statement to highlight contribution of an undergraduate student
Statements of authors' contributions appear to be a standard practice in journal papers from experimental sciences or similar fields. Yet I haven't seen many such examples in mathematics.
I'm wondering if it will be appropriate to have a statement of contributions in a paper (algebraic geometry + some applications) that states the contribution of a coauthor who is my undergraduate student. If yes, will it be strange if the statement only explain the contribution of this student coauthor but not other coauthors?
The intended purpose for such a statement is twofold:

To highlight the real (and nontrivial) contribution of an undergraduate student which may potentially be helpful for this student's career.
To avoid opposition from coauthors who may question listing a student as an author. (EDIT: To avoid opposition from coauthors who may question the actual amount of contribution)

EDIT: One crucial detail was left as it was somewhat subjective. The student's contribution is small but nontrivial in my opinion. It is only a nice-to-have result. This paper can live without it. But I believe it adds some depth to this paper. So the necessity of this student's contribution is debatable. I'd hope to preemptively eliminate this debate --- why argue with someone you'll work with for a long time.

Author contribution statements state the contributions of all authors, so, yes, I'd find it odd to read a statement about the contribution of just one of the authors.

At worst, the statement does no harm. At best, it encourages the student. Remove it if the journal editor objects.

In mathematics, the default assumption is that all authors contributed more or less equally to a project, so the main reason I see to describe individual author's contributions in a mathematics paper is that the authors want to attribute credit of certain aspects of the paper to individual authors.  (This can also be done with appendices by subsets of coauthors.)
It does not make particular sense to me to highlight someone's contributions just because they are a student. You are free to do so if you wish, but it will be weird if you only describe one of the authors' contributions.

To avoid opposition from coauthors who may question listing a student as an author.

This is completely ridiculous.  I have never heard of any co-author complaining that someone should not be listed as a co-author just because they are a student.

The contributions are definitely not equal in this case. Hence the question.

@ssquidd In that case, why not discuss with your coauthors whether they want that to be part of the paper?  Some other possibilities are the student's result could be included as a student-authored appendix, or the student could just write a separate short companion paper (or possibly these could be joint with you).

In mathematics, the default assumption is that all authors contributed more or less equally to a project — I would put it differently: In mathematics, the default public assumption is that the work was a team effort by all coauthors, and teasing apart individual sub-contributions is simply uninteresting/irrelevant.

I don’t think 2. is „completely ridiculous“. In my experience student contributions are often „forgotten“ or not credited appropriately. Maybe OP has supervisors that may question his decision to include a student as an author.

You should include an authors' contribution statement if and only if the journal requires it.  Follow the journal's style instructions.
The place to help a student's career is in a letter of recommendation.

I think it would be very strange to have contribution statements:

in a magazine that doesn't normally have them
for only one of the authors
only for most junior author (often it's more likely the senior authors that didn't do much!)

Instead of contorting to preempt a debate, just fight it out with colleagues if it does come up (and offline, not in article).  Confident assertion, and only addressing it if needed, will serve you better than this worrying pre-emption.  After all, you can refuse to allow your name and probably defacto block the publication if it comes down to it.
Of course it's also possible you are overrating the person's contribution (we only have your version and no details) but then the details can be debated among the collective authors if they force a discussion.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to cite primary source first found in secondary source?
I have the following situation (I am in the humanities):
I am writing a paper. In that paper, I several times cite a particular scholar's book. Now, in that book, this scholar cites (not quotes) a particular historical primary source.
As this looked interesting to me, I traced down this primary source (a diary entry), but I found it in a source collection different from that cited by the author. Moreover, when looking at the original source, I discovered that it contains additional content not summarized by that scholar that is useful for me. So I went ahead and directly quoted the primary source (including bits not mentioned by the author) in my paper.
Now, in the footnote, I am currently just providing a reference to the original source, not to the mentioned author where I first found a reference to that source. My question is whether this is okay?
According to the Chicago Manual (my citation style) and sources on the web, my understanding is that I only need to provide an additional comment in the form of "Source X, cited/quoted in ....." if I do not actually trace down the original source. So, it seems to me that what I am doing is fine.
Still, as especially the advice on the internet is somewhat unclear and mostly jut designed to discourage citing of primary sources without having checked them, I thought I could also ask here.
Thanks!

If I'm understanding correctly, you are saying you read a secondary source, which led you to a primary source; then you cited material from the primary source that wasn't discussed in the secondary source; and your question is whether you need to cite the secondary source because it led you to the primary?
If so, I do not think you need to cite the secondary source. It feels polite to do so, sort of like using "via" on Twitter. But in an academic paper I do not think it is required.

Thanks for the reply and apologies for being unclear. The secondary source does not quote but cites and summarises part of the primary source. I directly quote the primary source. Only a part of this direct quotation overlaps with the summary of the primary source in the secondary source.

Sorry, my response said you do not need to cite the primary source; I meant secondary. Will edit.

Thanks! So do you think that also applies in case where there is some overlapping as explained in my comment above？

"...a part of this direct quotation overlaps with the summary of the primary source in the secondary source." But you also said the "secondary source does not quote". Then how does the direct quote overlap with the summary?

Well, not verbatim, but in terms of content, i.e. part of the quote I use is summarised in the secondary source in the author's own words.

Then there is no need to cite the secondary source.

Thanks. Just out of interest : would it be different if the overlapping bit would be directly cited in the secondary source (but I had still looked up the primary source)?

No. And similarly, someone else who later cites the same primary source doesn't have to also cite you, just because you cited that primary source.

Thanks! That clears it all up.

You cite the source you use, so if you use the primary souce then you reference that.
If you cite both then you reference both.
You don’t cite sources you don’t actually quote.

Thanks! That is very helpful. I guess I was mainly wondering whether in addition to the reference to the primary source, I should also add "also cited in..." but apparently that is not necessary.

Think of it the other way, if someone followed a chain of 5 articles to get the primary which they then use. They don’t mention the other four.

Thanks! Understood.

"Actually quote" is a very narrow definition of use. Is that intentional? Would it perhaps be sensible to add "or mention ideas from"?

Well, that is how I understood his reply, but yes, thinking of it, would be great if @SolarMike could clarify.

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


text:
Ask for a recommendation letter from a teacher in the university I'm applying to
My situation is a bit unusual: I plan to apply for a second Master's degree in a foreign university I did an exchange semester in. It is pretty well-ranked compared to my current one. The Master's is related to my current one, but contains more theory (from a computer science degree with data science courses to a machine learning degree).
I need two letters of recommendation, and I am thinking about asking professors whose courses I followed during my exchange semester. Since my application is borderline (good grades lately, less so in my first two years of bachelor's) and the program is competitive, I assume that a letter of recommendation from professors at the same university would give my application a much-needed boost, especially since they teach courses in the program I am applying to.
I don't know how to ask for letters. I have never done it, and while I passed these courses, I didn't have the kind of stellar results that would make them call me a genius in the letter, though I think that they would be willing to help if I asked.
Is a good letter from my current university a better bet than an okay one from the university I apply to? Should I send one letter from my current uni, and one from the one I want? Is it even a good idea to ask these teachers for letters if I didn't have a close working relationship with them? If so, how would I go about asking them for a letter?

I think a lot is going to depend on what's in the Master's program and what other options you have.
If the Master's is going to involve research, then this is likely a bad idea. The professors at that institution can only comment on your performance in their course. At best that's going to weakly correlate to your ability to do research. If your letter-writers at your home university can talk about your research ability, that's going to be much more helpful.
On the other hand if the Master's is coursework only, then a letter from them can conceivably help your application - but since you said your results weren't stellar, these letters are likely to be lukewarm at best. In this scenario, if you have options who can write stronger letters, those should be more helpful.

I doubt that the letter from a professor at the other university, especially if just "okay" is going to help you much, if at all. If s/he writes you a letter, ethics might require that they can't participate in your admission in any other way. I'd suggest it is better to get good letters from those who know you well, and if the other's remember you positively it will just be an added bonus.
Of course, if someone knows you, they might also be limited in how they can participate, depending on the nature of the rules in place.

I know all the students I write references for...

I think it would certainly help if it was good. They would certainly trust the local one far more. However, the other side of that is the local recommender will probably be motivated to be more accurate in their praise, and not stick their neck out for a student they barely know. Hence the likelihood is a far more cautious recommendation.


text:
Etiquette to recontact the editor when he says the he will give the news as soon as he has some
Assume that the last time that one has contacted the editor of a journal (about 10 months ago) to obtain the progress of submitted manuscript, the editor has said that he will give news as soon as he has some news.
In this circumstance isn't it rude to recontact him again to obtain news from the progress of the manuscript?
Other relevant informations: (1) The editor is very responsive and the journal is reputated.
(2) I have submitted my paper 26 months ago to this journal.
Edit: The question How long after first contact, where editor says "manuscript is still under review", is it okay to enquire again about status of manuscript? is relevant but the difference between my question and that one is that since my last inquiry 10 months has passed but in that question 2 months has passed.

Although it's arguably dependent on field, 10 months is well past the time it should take to be able to provide a status update.
I remember reading this story about a woman who was bedridden for years. A doctor eventually examined her and found nothing wrong at all. Asked what the problem was, the woman said a previous doctor had left instructions for her to stay in bed "until he returned". The previous doctor evidently forgot about it, and the woman just followed instructions. This situation is similar.


text:
Data on costs of two-year colleges in the US, by state?
I teach at a community college in California. Our students' tuition is approximately 85% subsidized for the half of our students who can't show enough financial need, and 100% subsidized for the other half, who get fee waivers. There are various proposals at the federal level to eliminate tuition at two-year colleges, and possibly four-year state colleges as well. As a Californian, I find this kind of odd, since our community colleges are already essentially free, and the real financial struggle faced by students living in poverty is actually their need to work too many hours to pay for food and rent.
But is this different in other states? Do some states not have community college systems at all? Do some states have community colleges that charge significant tuition? Are there any statistics available for the US, broken down by state?

Up to 2012 you could probably find this in Statistical Abstract of the United States. Unfortunately the US doesn't compile that sort of information currently.

This report seems to have access to the data you are wondering about: https://www.demos.org/research/great-cost-shift-how-higher-education-cuts-undermine-future-middle-class Specifically Figure 8, "Annualized rates of growth in Average Annual Published charges..." They cite as their source: "National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, various years". The report argues that cost has increased in the aggregate just for listed tuition alone, not counting room/board.

This report says similarly that cost has grown beyond the Pell Grant: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/pell-grants-a-key-tool-for-expanding-college-access-and-economic-opportunity#_ftn39 In short, that the Pell Grant is the primary source of tuition funding for many low-income students, but the percentage of cost to attend college it covers has decreased over time. None of these reports seem to have access to, or report on, actual "bottom line cost of attendance" after all aid sources are taken into account, anywhere. Not really an answer, but hopefully helpful!

Here's the first Google result for "community college tuition by state:" https://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data Does this not work for you?

My local community college has quite a patchwork of tuition rates depending on where you live (in tax district, in state but not in tax district, out of state) as well as what you are studying (or even specific courses). Then there are possibly course fees (e.g. lab fees) added on. And that is before any tuition wavers, grants, state-sponsored scholarships, etc. etc. etc. So, I'm not sure even how to begin answering the question.

From people's comments and more web-surfing, I've found enough info to take some kind of stab at answering my own question.
California has the lowest community college tuition rates in the US. It appears that every state has some kind of community college system. Most states charge about 3 times more tuition than California. Roughly speaking, in most states a student paying full community college tuition (because they don't qualify for free waivers) is paying about 60% of the cost of instruction, with the other 40% being a subsidy from the state government. In California, it's more like 20% and 80%.
It's extremely difficult to give a clearcut comparison of costs. Various states have their own baroque rules. E.g., in California about half of students get fee waivers. These waivers used to be called BOG (board of governors) waivers, but are now subsumed under the College Promise program.
As an example of how complicated this can get, Pennsylvania has a system where some school districts choose to contribute to community college funding and others don't. If you live in a district that doesn't contribute, you pay higher "non-sponsored" tuition to attend a community college. The highest per-unit in-state tuition at any community college in the US seems to be $318/unit for non-sponsored tuition at Community College of Philadelpha; this is about $10,000/year, or about 7 times higher than California tuition.
College Promise is extremely complicated, and is implemented in different ways by different states. It's been sold to the voters as "free community college" or "free first year of community college," but it's actually both more and less than that.


text:
Going into academia if the research is interdisciplinary
If one is doing a PhD in an area that is on the borderline of a few areas (see the specifics below), would it be harder for them to find a job in academia after graduating?
To be more specific, the fields of linguistics (formal semantics), math (natural logic), and philosophy of language are closely connected. There is even a Dutch term which stands for the joint study of the three (which I cannot remember). Assume that one's PhD dissertation would be in that area(s), and the PhD itself would be a "dual" (double major) PhD in math and linguistics.
On the one hand, such a background suggests that more academic positions may be available (in applied math departments, or in linguistics departments, or in philosophy departments). On the other hand, being between the fields may be a disadvantage because the person doesn't actually belong to one specific field.
And a related question: what should that person do to make the process of finding postdoc positions easier?

Interdisciplinary work is often valued in academia precisely because it means you are more flexible and can play well with others. Finding postdocs is the same as other areas - get to know people and research groups in your area of interest.

Most research in linguistics is interdisciplinary, so I'm not clear on the point of the question.

While I can't speak for your specific field, the vast majority of faculty that I know have dual appointments. They have both a primary department and a secondary department that they belong to.

We can't really make general statements about one focus of research being better than another. Maybe in this hiring season there are 6 jobs out there perfectly suited to someone doing X, while there are 7 that specifically want (or just prefer) someone doing X+Y. And another year the ranking of numbers might switch.
Certainly "interdisciplinary research" has a strong positive connotation. My guess is that is because it most commonly entails the combination of a traditional (perhaps stagnant) old field with some sexy new field. The idea is that you are progressing toward "the future" where the field will be evolving in these new directions. While the old pigeonholing of research into particular categories becomes increasingly outdated.
On the other hand if you just combine a couple overcrowded fields that have been around forever you may not gain anything.
One possible drawback I can think of would be in teaching. Even when the hiring committee looks for someone with a lot of breadth, they still may require a lot of depth in their main field. They don't want to be stuck as the only one who can teach that boring old core required course forever.

I think the question calls for opinion, mostly, but I can try to give some perspective to your thinking.
For research, it is mostly narrowness and depth that is valued. That may be wrong, but it is how people are used to looking at new academics. But it is especially wrong on some questions. Noam Chomsky, for example fundamentally changed (part of) the study of linguistics through his application of formalism. He also added greatly to the study of computing languages. He was able to bring disparate ideas together and do something significant in both realms.
But, I suspect that those sorts of opportunities must be relatively rare, or academics would be more comfortable making judgments about the value of research that crosses lines. Applied math is, of course, better about this that theoretical math.
But, if you want a career primarily in research, and want to stand across multiple disciplines you will have to find ways to make it especially clear about the value of what you do. Every academic has to make their own case about their research, of course, but you will need to find ways to overcome this bias toward depth and narrowness.
If you want a career in teaching, primarily, the situation is a bit different. As others have commented (and answered) there is perceived value in interdisciplinary work among teaching faculty. But you can't be seen as heater-skelter in your interests. Your goal shouldn't be to say that you can teach either math or philosophy, I think. But your cross discipline insight can, and should, be a strong force in motivating students to think deeply and advance on multiple fronts at the point in their education where breadth is, perhaps, more important than depth.
I was once able to visit one of the colleges at Cambridge as an invited guest. After dinner the faculty gathers for discussion (and a spot of Jerez, of course). But the colleges at Cambridge are multi disciplinary and so the discussion was among people with very wide interests, from philosophy to computing. It was an enlightening experience. We seem to lack that cross discipline contact in US universities, and I think it is a shame. The BIG problems are solved by people with a wider view, perhaps. An part of the reason for that is that the wider view helps one see what is truly important.
However, at the end of the day, it is you that will need to make the case for the value of what you do. I think it can be made, but it may not be an obvious case to everyone.

Interdisciplinary PhD education comes with great potential and great risk. If you do it right you will achieve a lot but you can also fail fundamentally (both is possible in a "normal" PhD as well but extend is often more extreme in an interdisciplinary PhD).
You might want to read Ten simple rules for surviving an interdisciplinary PhD for some deeper background. Computer/Math/Biology is not exactly what you are searching for but I think it is similar enought that most rules should apply to you as well.


text:
Is it better to have a strong thesis, or to follow personal interests during PhD?
I'm a second year US PhD student in applied math. For the last year I've been working on one project with my advisor and another one of her students. We have also started a collaboration with a professor from another university on an unrelated topic. Both of these project are progressing at a fairly expected rate.
Recently, I have made headway on a "personal" project, which I expect to publish as a single author paper. As a result of this, I've been in contact with some people I met at a conference, and am planning to work on the follow up analysis with them and my advisor. I think this paper and the subsequent analysis will be significant enough that it could serve as the bulk of my thesis. However, I'm not that interested in this topic, and definitely don't want to spend my career on this problem.
I also just reached out to a new professor in our department about some projects which could be much more aligned with my personal interests.
At this point my main goal is to get a good postdoc and then a good tenure track position. I'm fine with grinding through any work for the next few years if it will help me get there, so my question is whether it will be more beneficial to continue with the personal project on which I've made the most progress, and end up with a very focused and "citeable" thesis, or to pursue problems I find interesting, and end up with a broader but perhaps less impactful thesis.
In either case I expect to work fairly closely with my advisor and one early career academic from outside my university, but if I pursue my personal interests, I'd probably end up working closely with at least one additional person.

What is the dilemma? You seem to be doing both now.

The dilemma is that if I continue to work on a range of projects like I'm doing now, that I won't be able to spend as much time on any single thing (resulting in a less focused thesis).

have you talked to your PI?

The papers are more important.   They have way more impact than thesis.  Especially on technical fields.
Your thesis will be pass fail usually.  May be written up just because advisor says you are ready to go.  This us different in humanities.
Depending on your results you may even have to be creative and mash a snowball together from scattered work.  Assigning a theme even if there isn't quite one.   Not ideal.  But happens.
It can also happen if you are strongly productive to just pick one part of your work time be the thesis.  It is also not uncommon to see students do a couple areas and eventually abandon one usually the first.  Often because it has more results.  This can even happen quite late in grad school.
The dirty secret is that the thesis is just a school drill.  But papers for the literature?  That is playing with the big boys.
A different question to ask is if you will produce more by sticking to one area or moving around.  Really you need to make your own guess on efficiency and how target rich the areas are.  In all cases you need to consider what to invest time on. But I don't think of it as thesis versus papers.  It's always papers.  Just on what topics.  Thesis is just a glorified term paper.

I suggest that you separate long and short term goals. Don't think of your dissertation as your final work or your best work. It is your first work (more or less). But it is better if it has some impact than if it does not.
You won't be a student for your entire academic life, one hopes.
It also isn't necessary to give up everything else in your research life to produce one thing. If you have broad interests it is a good thing. If you can build up a research program for yourself by keeping a notebook of work in progress it is a good thing.
However, your advisor should count for something here as s/he has the potential to give you a good strong start in an academic career. It is often a good thing to follow their lead for the thesis, while putting other ideas (somewhat) to the side for a while.
Once you finish your degree you will have much more freedom to set your own goals and follow your own path to attain them.
You seem to be in a good place, actually, with plenty of ideas. If you are working on the main thing (dissertation) and get stuck a bit, you can take up one of your other ideas as a kind of mental break. You may advance that a bit, but you may also free up the mental clog that left you stuck.

The snark in me wants to answer the headline question "Yes!! Yes it is!!".

Best for questions are pretty hard to answer, but ...
I think if the options are merely personal interesting VS. career-building, then the answer is obvious. (pick career-building or quit imagining academia will be your career).
What makes the answer less obvious is if the personally interesting is just less career-building than the "strong thesis". Here, the complications are two-fold: a PhD or any post-PhD research project both takes up several years of your life and determines the direction of your further research by marking you as an expert in something.
So if your choices are  PhD in Basket-weaving which is highly employable or PhD in Cross-Stitching which you love.
Basket-weaving PhD = several years of weaving baskets and then as an expert in basket-weaving continuing to weave baskets for the rest of your life.
Cross-stitching PhD = several years cross-stitching and then if employed continuing to cross-stitch for the rest of your life.
I guess my point here is that the monotony of picking the supposedly employable side can really get to you in a way that taking an undergraduate class on quilts won't. You have to do this like a job day in and day out for years. Moreover, you're signing yourself up to keep doing it because that's now your expertise. If you slowly start to hate it, you may find yourself in a weird place.
To get solid advice, you should talk with people in your field (not just in your lab) and figure out if cross-stitching has the same job prospects as basket-weaving or if you'll never get stable employment.

From my discussions with others, there is also the option of getting a PhD in cross-stitching and then doing research in basket-weaving or vice versa. While you certainly do limit your options by your choice of focus, it doesn't prevent you from working outside that area in the future (though certainly you probably won't go from cross-stitching to welding as easily).

I would advise to go for your interest.
There is not much point in having  good publications in a (sub)field you do not want to work in. It is the same as with students who are forced by their parents to study something "prestigious" (e.g. medicine or law) that they are absolutly not interested in. What's the point in having this eduction if you don't want to use it later?
EDIT: If you have the possibility, ability, time and energy you can of course try to pursue both (as suggested by Buffy) but be aware not to fall between two stools.

I think that as an either/or question this is bad advice. I think you are assuming that you can do both and I don't disagree.  But results of no consequence don't get you anywhere.

It is like with love. If you dont believe in your personal project 100%, dont go for it. It can distract you so much you even quit your PhD. But if you do believe in it, there is only one right thing to do. Go get 'er.

It's not like love. Besides, there is no love without life. And OP will have no academic life if he chooses an unproductive topic.

You can do just fine without an academic life, too. All research is not done in academia. Some people prosper way better on their own.

And some of us prefer research outside of academia as the social milieu there are uncongenial to us. But if answering here I think we have to respect OP's express preference for seeking a tenure-track appointment with a view to career in academia. But it seems like OP has disappeared from the Academia forum . . . Let's hope all is going well for him.

@Trunk yes definitely. What works for different individuals when comes to different kinds of work can vary quite remarkably much...

Given your desire for an academic career, I would have to advise maintaining the easy-coming, useful but not interesting topic for as long as it takes to find if the interesting topic yields any substantive fruit or not.
If you reach a point whereby a choice has to be made, e.g. due to time demands, I feel it's always better to be safe than to be sorry - so keep the productive but uninteresting subject as your thesis topic. To do otherwise would risk your planned future.
But if you start to get interesting results from the interesting topic then it's time to discuss with the supervisor if you should focus on this: will there be enough time to get more substantive results, what are the risks/rewards involved, etc.
Your dilemma is a small one compared to other students who are finding it hard going to get any topic to yield substantive results. So don't smoke too many cigars ruminating on it.


text:
Discriminated by senior researcher because of my ethnicity
I am working on a collaborative project between different parties, and there is a senior researcher who underestimates constantly what I ever propose or speak, and  he tries to illustrate that I am doing nothing new.
Although I have proven for the second time that there is a limitation in the study, he doesn't listen. I have witnessed that he respects and appreciates Asian students more than me.
Of course this just my side of the story, but I know many people from his country do not like women wearing traditional clothes as I do.
I don't know how to solve this problem, but I am not the only case. Many others are being judged by him based on their complexion, appearance, and garments.
I am kind of frustrated, trying to be amicable. Of course, there are other members in the project who appreciate me, but this senior researcher has clout over them.
What I should do in that case?
EDIT
I know I cannot change some people opinion about people from specific religion or ethnicity, what I can do psychologically to override that, I am trying to do my best as much as I can, but still, I had the same behavior.

"there are many people being judged based on their complexion, appearance, and garments". By him, or in general? "I know many people from his country does not like female wearing traditional clothes as I have". What makes you think this is why he's acting differently with you?

Do you have any evidence that would convince a third party, like an ombudsperson, a common superior of you and the senior researcher, or the human resources department that the senior researcher is discriminating based on your ethnicity? In particular, how did you witness "that he respects and appreciates Asian students more" than you? What does the (purported) discrimination consist in other than him underestimating you and disagreeing with you?

@Buffy thanks for the opportunity to clarify: I don't contest (or confirm) OP's interpretation, but possible answers differ depending on what exactly OP observed and whether OP has any hard evidence.

Also, in the comments, you seem to dismiss the possibility of going to an ombudsperson as there's no such person over the collaboration; but, what is the organizational structure of your collaboration?  People will need to know the context this is happening in to provide advice.

@Monkia But the problem is that your question is incredibly hard to answer as it stands. We can tell you that your problem is horrible, that it shouldn't be that way, that we hope that you make it anyways, that we support you, etc., but we can't really offer useful avice without knowing more about the specific situation.

Answers in comments, general life advice, and possible alternative explanations have been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment. @Monkia: Please try to [edit] clarifications into your question, even if it is just “I have no hard evidence” or “X is not an option.”

In the comments you mentioned that getting an ombudsperson involved was not an option for you. However, your advisor does not necessarily need to know that you talked to the ombudsperson. Ombudspersons are often required to keep discussions confidential unless you explicitly tell them otherwise. You of course need to check that before with your ombudsperson before you go that route. Just discussing your options face to face with another person who has to treat that discussion confidentially is probably of enough value in and of itself. And maybe (s)he can do even more.

The first step in solving this issue is going to be convincing a senior third party that there is a problem. This third party could be:

The head of department
Your supervisor (if you have one)
An ombudsperson
A faculty member of the same ethnicity as you

Tell them you have a personal issue and need their help and their confidence. Odds are, they will be willing to help you.
Be warned that evidence will be paramount in this kind of dispute. The odds are high that he'll deny he's discriminating, and he might even be able to provide some evidence for that (for example, perhaps he's supervised a student of the same ethnicity as you, possibly wears the same clothes as you, and that student had a positive experience). You will need convincing evidence of your own. As of time of writing, there's nothing convincing in the question statement.
If you don't have that evidence, start collecting it. For example something like this:

On 27 April 2019, I approached him with [solution] to [problem]. He laughed and said in the presence of other students that it's not surprising someone of [your ethnicity] would come up with something that will not work. I later proved him wrong by showing that the solution indeed works.

The more such incidents you can document, the more compelling your case will be.

I am kind of frustrated, trying to be amicable. Of course, there are other members in the project who appreciate me, but this senior researcher has clout over them.

First, it's important that you maintain these good relations with the people who appreciate you. If you feel comfortable with it, you could try to discuss the issue with them: this way you would get a more neutral point of view, and if they confirm your feeling of being discriminated against you have a more solid reason to act on it. Assuming some of them are more experienced, they can also provide you with advice knowing the specifics of the situation.

what I ever propose or speak, and he tries to illustrate that I am doing nothing new.
Although I have proven for the second time that there is a limitation in the study, he doesn't listen. I have witnessed that he respects and appreciates Asian students more than me.

Second, I would suggest that you try to assess this potential bias as carefully and objectively as possible by being "extremely professional" yourself. This is not easy, but it's worth clarifying the nature of the bias, especially if you consider making a complaint but also simply for your own peace of mind. The idea is to be extremely rigorous in whatever you present to this person. For instance when you have an idea to propose, prepare a written report with the points you want to make: what is the main problem, why it matters, what is the solution that you propose, all of this preferably backed by references in the literature and showing the novelty (btw this can also help you write a paper or your PhD later). By doing this you take the discussion to a professional level, as opposed to the grey area of intuitions/opinions. This will make your arguments clear and precise, so that it's harder for the senior researcher to dismiss them without themselves making the effort of replying in detail. It also shows effort on your part, so it would make any bias in favor of other students' ideas much more obvious comparatively. Finally, there's even an (admittedly small) chance that your efforts would cause this person to realize their bias and change their behaviour in the future.
I hope this helps.

thank for this answer! actually, I am trying to be as professional as much as I can and don't commit mistakes, it takes me time to make a rigorous proof and that is my end goal.


text:
Is it okay to work in a very old research area (in TCS)?
I am a Ph.D. student works in theoretical computer science, I work on the area which is related to rings and my work is to design algorithms for problems related to rings. I did my bachelor in computer science not in mathematics.
I have a strong interest in this area, despite the fact that I have been told and suggested by multiple people to not pursue research in this field; I did it because of my interest. Due to my strange choice, I did not get much collaboration. I have been able to publish just a couple of research papers (not in the top tier) and will graduate after two semesters. I worked very hard, but the output I got is not even a fraction of what I have invested.
I still like it, but the problems is that job opportunities, collaboration, and funds are very scarce. There are funds but only for those who publish in the top places. I am trying to publish in top places, but till now I was not successful. Many people around me have told me that my work is average. Some senior researchers advice me to be patient as it takes time to mature in this area.
Keeping the future in my mind, I see myself on a very different track as compared to others. My goal is to continue the research as well as get in some decent institute after my Ph.D.
My question is it possible to be a successful researcher in this kind of area? What does it mean to do some significant research? Is it okay to work in a very old research area?

Rings as in algebra or rings as in networks? Do you mean "dead research area" when you say "old research area"? Do you have an idea why it is dead: all low-hanging fruits eaten? generalized? the originally anticipated applications stolen by other methods? or people moved on for no better reason than fashion and hype? Your strategy will depend on the answer to this question.

@darij grinberg  Rings as in algebra

Define what "okay" means. You've already pointed out you can't find collaborators and multiple people suggested you not research this area. Presumably they made those suggestions for a good reason at least to them. Why would the advice here from strangers outweigh theirs? You've already made clear that the job opportunities and funding available is scarce, why can you not decide for yourself if that scarcity makes it "not okay"?

Maybe it would help to implement your algorithms as a package for some CAS software (GAP?) so that they could be useful as research tools by other academics. That might help demonstrate that your work can still be applicable, or lead to citations when the tool is used.

(Maybe this is a US-centric comment that only makes sense in the US context.)  What kind of (academic) career do you want?  I think the answer could be very different depending on whether you're aiming for a research-oriented career at a top research university, or a middling research university, or a more teaching-oriented (but with some research) career at a more teaching-oriented college or university.  For very good reasons, MIT, LSU, Gonzaga, and Central Washington want very different things from their CS faculty.

@staff: Thanks for answering that question, but what about the other: Is it just an old subject, or a dead subject? What did people tell you as the reason why you should not pursue the subject? (Computational algebra is currently being done fairly actively in Austria -- e.g., at RISC -- and in Germany -- recently there has been several new positions in it --, and probably at a few other places, though I would agree that the field is underappreciated, particularly away from Gröbner bases and coding theory.)

@ darij Grinberg I am not saying it is dead subject. I know people works in  groups in some different places, but at the place I belong to.

You have discovered a fundamental trade-off. If you work in an obscure field and do something significant it may be harder to get recognized, but you have the field to yourself and a few colleagues. But if you work in a popular area you might just get lost in the crowd and even get scooped in your latest findings. Neither is ideal. But either can be a path to success.
However, you need a base from which to work. But so does everyone. In looking for an academic job you need to match yourself to requirements and also show that you have the potential to stand out, at least a bit. If you are competing with 40 other people just like you in background and research interests it will be difficult to stand out. But if you are unique you will raise questions about how you will fit in. It is, however, your case to make.
It is easier, of course to do what you want when you are already well established (tenured). But you have to do what it takes to get tenured. But I don't think you need to defer doing what you like. You just need to do it well.
Personally, I find your interests intriguing. But that is because I studied math but worked in CS. I'm certainly not unique in that. Being able to collaborate across departments might be seen as a plus in some institutions. So might joint appointments between two departments. Everything is a tradeoff.
But spending your working life on things that don't much interest you just because they are "hot" seems like a waste of talent. Since you don't seem to be one of those fighting to get into one of the top ten institutes in the world, but can, perhaps, have somewhat more modest goals (top 50?, 100?) I think you can do fine.
So, yes, you can be a successful researcher, but you will have to make that success yourself.

I personally know many people (whose names I cannot disclose before consulting them) who work in the field of theoretical computer science and deal with pretty "old fashioned" problems.
However, each of them has a common characteristic: before purusing the research area that lies in their heart, they firtst published numerous articles in so called hot topics.
So, I believe that you can be a truly significant researcher in the area of your interest provided that you keep your current research as a side project and not pose it as your main area of ineterst while applying to jobs, fundings, etc.
I would also remark that (again, according to my own experience) people who stick to old-school problems and do not dwell into the hot topics are above-the-avarage scientists.


text:
Should I do exercises given in online course and accompanying textbook if I want to do research in machine learning ahead?
I'm a junior year computer science undergrad just began to study machine learning a month ago. My aim is to start reading papers in my area of interest under Machine Learning and begin to do research in ML as an intern/independent project. I want to further go to grad school after a gap year and earn an MS + Ph.D. in machine learning.
I'm taking Prof. Andrew Ng's CS229 lectures online and side by side reading relevant chapters from Bishop's "Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning" book.
The mathematical problems/exercises given in both the problem sets of CS229 and PRML textbook are mathematically too sophisticated for me to solve on my own, although I can follow the solutions. How much of these exercises would an undergrad/masters student be expected to solve? And if I am considering a Ph.D., should I solve them or skip them at all?
Will only the mathematical knowledge and implementation of machine learning algorithms matter to start with research and later in grad school without spending time on these exercises?

Actually, most people require practice and reinforcement to learn much of anything. Reading and seeing isn't enough to get more that a superficial "acquaintance" with anything. Especially any thing complex.
So, yes, you should do the exercises. Following along with the given solutions isn't the same as actually doing them.
But, success won't come immediately, nor easily, if the topic is deep. You can also look for simpler exercises in a field if the ones you have elude you. But practice is essential for nearly everyone. The exceptions are very rare.
Also, you need some feedback on your solutions and this is very difficult to get in a purely online course. Look for local resources to find someone who can look at the work you do and comment on it. It is possible to develop bad habits if you don't get suitable feedback. Eventually you may be able to work through those habits to better ones, but the path will be longer.


text:
Attending a conference where my ex-supervisor and his collaborator are present, should I attend?
I have been asked to attend a conference and present from my current employer since this conference is highly focused on my research point. In this conference, my ex-supervisor and his collaborator are going to be present and one will give a lecture. My current employer doesn't know about my story since they did not ask. I am afraid and confused on whether to avoid the places they are going to be in as they have tried to destroy me before and it was very harsh or face my fears and face them without speaking. I am also afraid that they would do badmouthing to my current employer.
What could be the best thing I can do, I am highly interested in to be in, but I am afraid of them and I don't know in case I refused attendance, what kind of accuses I can explain to my current employer ( the project I am working in is cooperation between different university, and each university is going to submit their students for this conference which focused only on my research field).

I don't think we could possibly answer this for you.

I'm a bit confused on your timeline. In the past couple months, your current PI has been  "very pissed off", you have considered nominating her for an award, you have been looking for a new job, you've been blacklisted because your current PI is taking advantage of you, and been discriminated against because of your ethnicity. Can you clarify?

@cag51, I was holding a position at a research institute and then they offered me a Ph.D. position, after one year I was forced to leave. I did not find a place to host me, I accepted to go to a loof country because I was in a desperate need for money and they give me very low salary of 350 euro plus a room, I could not bear any more, I started to apply for another position, this ordeal ended after six months, I have been offered a Ph.D. position again in another good country and for the destiny it is the same work I did in my previous first year PhD.

It sounds complicated track and that was because of my toxic first PhD supervisor and his collaborator and then the other lab in other country take advantage of me and offered low salary when I arrived in their lab, so you can say both of the first experience were bad, now I am thankful to be with nice people thats why I was asking whether to nominate my current supervisor for a workshop I am coorganizing.  The current didnot know any thing about that as they didnot ask and thats why I am afraid to meet this people as I mentioned this field is pretty small. Hope the events are more clear now.

Currently, I am working in a collaborative project, and one of them is a senior researcher who is also in good terms with the previous X people, he is not my direct supervisor, but currently, we are cooperating with him. I feel comfortable as long as my direct supervisor are quite nice people, but I don't want to see past repeat itself as my ex-supervisors collaborator did not welcome me in the lab and affected on my supervisor to kick me out saying that I doubt your work without even giving constructive feedback or counter proof to my work.

With this number of giagntic interpersonal problems in your immediate past, I suggest that you should seek professional counselling rather than the advice of random people on the internet.

First of all, I’m sorry to hear that you’re going through this.
I would ignore them in the conference. I don’t know if this motivates you, but going to a conference, doing an amazing job and still shining in my field despite their sabotage attempts would be really satisfying to me.
On a professional level, if your job requires conference attendance and you categorically refuse for whatever reason, it will not help your career. Don’t let them sabotage you further!

If you're staying in their field, you're going to run into them sooner or later.
Some suggestions.
Certainly do not approach either one. If they attempt to talk with you casually, you can either immediately excuse yourself by pleading previous business (meeting someone, etc.). If one attends your talk and tries to derail it or asks questions that seem inappropriate, shut them down, perhaps by one of the techniques listed in this answer.
If you are not seeing a mental health professional, you may want to do so. The right one will be able to help process what has happened and give you tools for dealing with it, and with other situations that might happen in the future.


text:
Phd interview question
Just wondering if anyone has ever been asked this question during a PhD interview: If you get a place without funding, would you be able/willing to self-fund?
My interviewer said that it was compulsory to ask this question.

While this indeed is a clear question that can be answered exactly, I'm wondering what you would do with the answer that somebody else has been asked that question. Perhaps there's another question you really want to ask?

Short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer:
Some programs that aren't able to guarantee fully funding their students often ask this question just in case they run across some issues with securing funding from the school. Some programs ask this question during the interview but from my experience, most ask during the application process. For me personally, the question usually asked how much money I would be able to take out of my own pocket to pay for tuition (I always just wrote "0").
Since I'm not on the faculty of whatever program you applied to, I can't speak for your program, but they may take your answer into consideration for whether to accept you into the program or not.

I have not heard of this question, but I come from a university and discipline with perhaps more stable grant funding support for studentships.


text:
How to take a mental health related leave of absence (immediately before quals) without revealing mental illness to advisor
Recently due to burn out, my physical and mental health have been deteriorating to the point where I believe I need several months of leave to recover before I can be at a point where I can function normally again. I have been seeing a counsellor. However, now is a particularly 'bad' time to take leave because my PhD qualifying exams (first attempt) is very soon and in the month following, I have conferences/academic travels planned (which are great opportunities for furthering my career that my advisor has offered to me instead of to other students). Any one of these is enough exertion that I serious doubts that my physical and mental health will be recoverable afterwards, which makes me determined to take leave now, before it is too late. However, I am aware that having both these plans disrupted with short notice will not make my advisor or my department happy. Furthermore, while my relationship with my advisor is currently fine, it is not close enough that I feel comfortable confiding in him that I have a mental illness. His personality traits make me suspect that he might either not be particularly sympathetic/understanding, or he will be too afraid to 'break' me in the future. Therefore, I would prefer that the department and my advisor do not know that this leave of absence is due to mental health.
However, I need a compelling reason for the leave to be approved at this point in my studies and to have my qualifiers shifted to an unorthodox later date. My family are supportive of my decision for taking leave and have offered to invent some sort of family emergency which I can use as an excuse. However, my family are overseas, which is a fact known to both my advisor and my department (I am one of very few international students), yet I hope to be able to stay here during leave, where I have the support of both my husband and counsellor. We live close to campus and the counsellor is on campus in a small campus. So I am afraid that if I lie that I need to leave immediately for a family emergency, that during the time of my leave, my advisor/department secretary/chair will see me walking around campus and this might cause problems.
Are there any potential valid justifications for a leave of absence which do not mean that I have to mention mental illness, or leave the country? I will also be discussing this with my counsellor, but perhaps someone here has a clever idea that I have completely missed. Also it would be helpful for me if people can provide me with context/comparisons for just how bad/uncommon it would be to 1) take a leave of absence shortly before a qualifying exam (from the view of the department and advisor) and 2) take a leave of absence that disrupts travel plans where so far no money has been spent (from the view of the advisor), so that I can have some expectation of the resistance I might encounter.

I would not condone lying in this situation, talk to your advisor.

This would honestly be one of the first lies I have ever told. I would also prefer to avoid lying, but questions like https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97439/my-supervisor-doesnt-believe-in-depression?rq=1 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/77908/need-a-thesis-extension-due-to-mental-illness-but-supervisor-seems-unwilling-h and a suspicion he might ask me to just get over the next few months (and judge me harshly if I do not) make me very reluctant to be honest with him.

I have seen many students start with a lie and watch it unravel... Really causes more grief than you think it solves.

An on-campus counsellor should know the procedures for taking a leave of absence. If you have not done so already, I suggest getting their advice on this. They know more than any of us can about your university's policies and procedures, and your mental state.

Will you have visa issues as an international student if you try to stay in country while on leave from college? If you are not sure, discuss this on expatriates. You can just say you need the leave for medical reasons.

No, I will have neither visa or financial issues during leave. And yes, I will bring this up with the counselor immediately in our next meeting.

If you trust your advisor so little that you feel the need to lie to them, you need a new advisor.

Have you considered asking for leave due to "urgent health-related issues" without providing more detail than you feel comfortable providing? There is no need to explain exactly what issues you are dealing with at the moment. It is perfectly sufficient to state convincingly -- perhaps with supporting documents from a medical doctor or other health professional -- that the issue is urgent and requires that you take leave as soon as possible. How you phrase this is something to discuss with your counselor.
Personally, I don't think it's reasonable, when your mental health is at stake, to agonize over what your adviser might or might not think of you. Chances are they will be understanding and appreciate that you come to them now and not later, when your health has deteriorated further and more work has piled up. By contrast, if your adviser turns out to be unsupportive or worse, it's time for you to look for someone else to work with! Also this is worth finding out sooner rather than later, so you may see this request as a litmus test of your adviser's qualities.
As another aside, brooding over other people's impression of you is a habit that isn't conducive to mental well-being. I suggest talking this over with your counselor as well, and finding a way to assert your needs and boundaries with confidence. It will come in handy later in your (academic) career.

+1. It´s a urgent health issue, period. Details are non of anyone´s business.

Thank you for your answer. The form for applying for a leave of absence differentiates between medical issues and psychological ones, so I would need to be specific. But yes, I could still go with the 'urgent mental health issue' line.

And since you have physical health issues, you could just mention those if you wanted to. But that's entirely your choice.


text:
Answer "Justification for travel support" in conference registration form
In a conference registration form I found a slot to be filled having the header "Justification for travel support". I don't quite understand what they are asking precisely. What is the appropriate way to fill this in?
I remark that they ask for resume and research statement in different sections of the registration form for the purpose of attributing funding.

what is the conference? can you link their website please

"I don't quite understand what they are asking precisely." Are you able to ask them what they're asking?

With some conferences/courses, free or subsidised travel (and even lodging) is provided by the conference organisers and/or sponsors for a certain subset of participants. The eligibility criteria varies - and may include students (undergraduate or postgraduate) or participants from listed developing countries. What I quoted are just examples. For specifics, you should refer to the details stated on the conference website or printed brochure and see if you qualify for such assistance/subsidy (and then decide if you wish to avail yourself of it). If they didn't give these details on the website or publicity materials, it is appropriate to write to them for clarification.

If the form has only space for a one-liner, I think one of "student", "early career researcher", "unemployed", "developing country", or even "minority group", would do. If the free space is one page or so, probably they want a more detailed statement in which you detail how well the conference fits with your research themes and how important it would be for your professional development.

@Federico I'm in full agreement. Good advice.

@FedericoPoloni Yes, it is one line (but you can type in it without space constraint). Since they ask for a resume and a research statement in other sections, I take it that your advice applies to this situation. Thank you. And thank you Deepak.

Do you need assistance from the conference organizers to pay for your travel to the conference and/or accommodation? If so, give your reasons here. If not, ignore the box.

It should be something like:

Presenting a paper at the conference.
No institutional/employer travel funding.
No third-party travel funding.
No (significant) personal wealth.


text:
What is the correct etiquette when one would like to include the alternative proofs supplied by the reviewer
Sometimes when one receives referee's reports, the referee supplies alternative proofs for the results of the paper. Sometimes the supplied proof is much shorter and more elegant than the original proof.
Is it acceptable to include these proofs in the paper (without formally asking the permission from the reviewer) if the author emphasizes that this proof comes from the anonymous reviewer?
Many times I have done this, and the reviewer has never objected. But I am wondering if one should be more cautious and first formally asks a permission and if the referee permits then includes the referee's proof.
If that matters the subject is Mathematics.
Edit: Side information (following the comment). Assuming that the supplied proofs are for the auxiliary results of the paper, not the main results.

There was a similar question recently (Minor revision with suggestion of an alternative proof by reviewer). Andreas Blass' answers does mention asking the reviewer for permission when the alternative proof is for a central result of the paper.

I would think that if the referee shared an alternative proof in their comments to the author, their very reason for doing so was so that you could include it in the paper.  What else would be the point?
I don't think you need to ask for permission.  It would be sort of like asking for permission to take a mint from that little bowl by the door of a restaurant - that's what it's there for.  You can ask if you really feel it's important, but it creates a slight amount of extra work for the referee and the editor who has to relay your communications.
If the alternative proof is such a major contribution that you think the referee ought to become a co-author, then of course that is a separate discussion.

You can definitely include the superior proof, with attribution to the anonymous referee.  Referee comments are made for the purpose of improving the paper, and revisions based on referee comments are expected.
Giving you a better proof of a theorem is above and beyond the call of duty, so I can understand why you might want to give a greater acknowledgement in that case.  If you decide you would like to give a named acknowledgement for the referee (or even make them a co-author) then write back to the editor and propose that you would like to include a named acknowledgement for this part, and ask if the referee is willing to identify himself/herself so that you can give an acknowledgement by name.

Since the result in question is a side result, not a main one, I don't think you're required to ask permission, but I would suggest that you do so anyway, as a matter of courtesy. And the paper should say explicitly what the referee contributed --- a simplified (or improved or ...) proof of such-and-such result.
Looking at it from the referee's point of view, if an author asked me for permission, I'd give it. If an author used the proof from my report without asking for permission, I wouldn't worry about it. If the paper didn't say that this proof came from a referee, I'd be unhappy, not because I lose credit (an acknowledgement for an anonymous referee doesn't gain me any credit anyway) but because the author falsely makes it look as if (s)he invented that proof.


text:
Do academics actually work "full-time"?
My current postdoc position requires that I work 41 hours per week during a 5-day work week.  As my first post-graduate position, I decided to take this seriously and actually track my hours. (People at labs have to do this anyway, so I figured it could be a helpful habit.)  I found that except for the weeks where I definitively over work, I often can't meet 41 full, productive hours.  Accounting rigorously for breaks, I often fall short by a couple hours, and even then, I know that some hours I log as working, I'm usually struggling to focus.  Most weeks I feel guilty and make up for the hours by staying late or working over the weekend, which is of course undesirable.
So I wonder: is anyone actually productive all hours of their work week?  Is there any research on how to optimize one's mental energy during the work week?
Please refrain from answers like, "You're being too hard on yourself." I'm a freshly minted PhD, of course I'm being too hard on myself.

There's a great Q&A related to this over at Psychology.SE: What is the most effective maximum work duration per day?

When you wake up in the middle of the night with a good idea do you count your hours sleeping as ‘productive’? Does anyone actually be ‘productive’ every moment of their 40 hour week?

work != "productive"

See my answer https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8542/how-hard-do-early-career-academics-in-the-united-states-work-really/8543#8543

Shortly after I got married, my wife asked me to track how much time I worked in a week. I did so, accounting as well as I could for activities like thinking while showering. The result was 55 hours in that week. I have not repeated the experiment, so all I can give you is that one data point.

@StrongBad Thanks for the link-- thankfully I'm in Europe and have over twice as much vacation time!

Full time is a misleading term. Postdocs, I suppose, normally have supervisors who set the conditions for work. Something like what you've experienced. You meet those expectations or you have problems. So yes, such people normally work full time by the supervisor's definition of it. It may include scheduled hours or not. Lab work often needs to be scheduled, but some lab work needs to go on day and night.
Professors, on the other hand, especially tenured professors, normally don't have supervisors in the same sense. They set their own conditions of work. They set a schedule and keep to it sufficiently well that they can be productive. But the schedule might be erratic.
I've known professors who are able to take off a couple of hours in the middle of the day to take a bike ride. But they may also work after supper or on week ends. I doubt that many of them keep a listing of total hours worked. I never did.
In fact, intellectual work is better driven by ideas than by a clock. If I'm building something important, the clock may completely abandon me and I'll work until I am exhausted or the idea flow stops. If I don't have any interesting ideas, then sitting at a desk or computer has no value whatever. I'm better off going off on a walk or something relaxing. That doesn't mean that my brain shuts off. I just stop trying to force it to work when it won't.
Time is a terrible measure of productivity for intellectual work. There is no assembly line for good research ideas, though proving it out can be a bit more methodical, even tedious. But that's why post docs work a fixed schedule.

“I only write when inspiration strikes. Fortunately it strikes at nine every morning.” (attributed to Faulkner)

@henning and everyone, when I was an undergrad my (marvelous) writing teacher said that many writers had the regimen that they would write until they had advanced their current project by one page. Not that they only wrote one page, but that the "accepted" partial manuscript was one page longer. This produces a short story  every 18 days or a novel every year. Of course, writing such things isn't linear, so the implication is that a lot of effort is needed to achieve this.


text:
How to tactfully "decommit" from projects?
As a young academic recently flown from the nest, I am starting to figure out my own research interests. I now feel like I have too many, though. During a postdoc where I struggled to fit in and produce papers, I started or agreed to take part in something like 8 projects, a couple of them well outside my field, requiring the acquisition of new skills. I've tried principal-component-like analysis to prioritize projects, splitting my week up into chunks of time devoted to particular projects, and various other methods to make meaningful progress. I think, though, I really just need to decommit myself from a couple projects or push them off by six months. What is the best way to do this without building up a bad reputation and alienating future collaborators? Or will most senior folk understand the situation as the mistakes of a young buck and not take it personally?

How "formally committed" to these projects (the ones you want to drop) are you? Allowing early-stage discussions to fizzle out is a bit different than underdelivering on formal, funded projects where you've been assigned real responsibilities.

Are you still in this post-doc? How much time do you have left? Adjusting your priorities to ensure you finish things before you run out of time is a very natural, easy-to-accept reason, if it applies to you.

Only one of the projects is a "must-finish"-- the rest are born out of e-mails I sent to people I thought were interesting, or visiting other universities.  I'm moving on to another postdoc, and some of these projects I can take with me.

The more I think about it, I think an underlying problem is determining what commitment is... perhaps part of being an academic is accepting the tension of letting a project stew in an indeterminate phase, without currently investing in it or completely shutting it off.  I think about half my projects are in that phase, in which case, maybe I don't need to take any action?

See this as well : https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/130266/72855

@SolarMike -- that is my own question; I think it is different in nature

Better to withdraw explicitly rather than just disappear.
After you decide which are the projects that you can and must stick with, go to the leader(s) of the others - in person - and tell them you must withdraw. Tell them your "youthful enthusiasm" overcame your good sense and you are in danger of shortchanging everyone's expectations and that you value their work too much to get in the way at this time.
A good time to be a bit honest and humble.
But this sort of thing has to be done face to face. Email isn't going to be a good vehicle. If face to face is actually impossible it is much harder. In such cases you may want to offer, in email, say, to stay connected but to take a lesser role. That is the sort of thing that would likely come up in a personal meeting in any case.

Note that you don't have to be a youth to have "youthful enthusiasm". See, for example: Paul McCartney age 73

Hmm.  I'm definitely enthusiastic, but "childish" sounds a bit unfair.  From what I've observed in my field, many professors are way more over committed than I am and make zero apologies for the screw-ups they cause.  Also, as I mentioned above, only one of the projects is actually connected to a grant, and I have no doubts about finishing that one.

Also, most of my collaborators don't live in the same country, so face-to-face is not at all reasonable.

Actually "boyish enthusiasm" is a US colloquism. That is all I meant. But trying to be a bit less sexist about it. Trying not to offend can wind up offensive, I guess. Sorry.

Much harder, of course if you can't actually see them. It is much harder to seem sincere.

Hahaha I deeply appreciate that.

Also I'm pretty sure the expression is "boyish charm."

@artificial_moonlet, yes, that too, but not only that. Google knows all.

@Buffy as someone from the US, I've heard of childish enthusiasm but not boyish enthusiasm used in a general case. So either phase doesn't quite fit, in my opinion, unless you were specifically implying a lack of maturity. For some reason I feel "childlike" would have less of that implication than "childish", enough.

@Buffy: if you or someone else would adjust this answer to account for the discussion in the comments, I will accept it.

Adolescent enthusiasm. :P

I think what's lost in the discussion about who exactly is enthusiastic and what the age limits are on that enthusiasm is the actual point I think Buffy was trying to make. That point would be that attributing your desire to withdraw from a project to your own overreach is a way of taking the blame and making clear that you do not blame others both of which are good interpersonal ways to soften such a withdrawal (appropriate because the title question is about tact). Whatever language you use, convey that it is your fault for overextending rather than an issue with the collaboration.

(also I'd add that taking the blame doesn't mean others will think less of you; you've already admitted you are at fault for overextending: people will think better of you if you own that responsibility)

When I moved to my first faculty position, my advisor told me your time is your most valuable resource, be very careful how you commit it. It has proven to be very true, especially since I had my baby. As a young academic I drowned myself in commitments to a point I almost had a burnout.
I will advise you differently than the rest:

If you have committed explicitly to deliver something, then you have to deliver that. Your “street credit” is on the line. As a young academic, and still doing a postdoc, the last thing you need is for people to think you bail on your responsibilities.
If these are side projects, meaning just some group emails or initial discussions, then just “let them go”. If people actually need your input, they will ask you explicitly. If not, then your better not meddling.

I'd love to combine this with the first response.  I don't actually think your advice is all that different-- it seems I have to first understand which things are promised deliverables, which things are whimsical side projects, and which things are in an amorphous middle phase.  Without much explicit guidance from my PI this past year, it's been a real, tangible struggle figuring all of this out.


text:
Climbing the ∞ university well - Theoretical Physics
I'm an MPhys student who almost finished his undergraduate. I'm doing a masters in theoretical physics next year, probably at Kings College London. I have been rejected by Imperial and Cambridge(Part III).
Keeping in mind that theoretical physics is one of the most competitive academic fields, is there any chance of being accepted in top universities(UK or US) with such a masters degree? How high should my grades be in order to have a fair chance of being accepted at top 10 universities?
I would really like to do my Phd in a top university so that I could maximise my chances of getting a good postdoc position. More than that, I really love theoretical physics and I'd be VERY happy if I could contribute in world leading theoretical research in fundamental physics.
Edit: Especially for people with similar past experience, I would really appreciate your input.

if you think theoretical physics is one of the most competitve fields, then one could argue your disposition for savantism, prodigy, autistic "abilities" are more important than any grades you can work aout by strong discipline and effort. It's good to know what you want, but bad to work against your dispostion, you will not have a happy career/life, even if you get a fixed position at a top university, but don't match with your colleagues. Just work for it, have a life, and look where you end in the academic game. Just do theoretical physics as good as you can instead of "world leading"

Thanks for your input.

Possible duplicate https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38237/how-does-the-admissions-process-work-for-ph-d-programs-in-the-us-particularly

Thanks, though this is a subject specific question. Also I would like to add that I got a 71% average(not great not bad I guess).

We get this question a lot.

I don't think elite Ph.D. programs look at master's programs as a positive, per se.  For instance, if you aren't as sharp (or diligent or whatever the metric), I don't think they trade that off with your experience.  IOW, they don't trade capability for experience.  If anything on the experience level, they prefer "fresh meat".
All that said, if you think you are of the caliber that you SHOULD have gotten in, but didn't (e.g. because of grades), than fine.  There is a natural breakpoint with the masters.  I have seen one good friend (sharp as heck, but was at a so so Canadian Ph.D. school move to JHU, doing theoretical physics).
It ended up being a win win.  JHU got someone who was towards the top of his grad school class.  But note, this is very different from experience trumping skill.  More like he really should have been at JHU all along and then things got corrected.  So I would look at yourself and how you compare to the average person in the grad school classes at your target universities.  It's probably not all about brains, but really...brains (particularly mathematical aptitude) is a big part of the equation for theoretical physics.

P.s.
(1)  I am trying to be truthful and analytical to help you.  Versus telling you something that makes you feel good, but is not most insightful.
(2)  In general, "elite" programs (Julliard, Harvard physics, Goldman, McKinsey, NFL) tend to value "horsepower" over experience. One can argue if this is rational or not for them (probably it is), but in any case, it is how they behave.  Note that vast portions of the business world actually don't make the tradeoff as strongly or even make it the opposite.  All that said, in academia, really you are better off going to the best brand (people will hate on me for saying it...but it's the dirty insight).  School tends to be much more about head of the class, than the working world is.
(3)  You might also think about other areas of science where your skills could have more relative advantage...not everyone needs to be a theoretical physicist.
(4)  I checked on some of your physics questions.  Very detailed questions and I want to give you an attaboy/gurl for the effort you took into making sense of tensors.  Good drive.

Thanks a lot, for all your input! Just a small comment, would that mean that I'd need to be at least the top student of my class? It is really a matter of setting a certain type of goal for my next year.

Wherever you study you need to be at the top of your peers in the faculty estimation. An old saying, translated to UK is "The scariest words in the English Language: A C student from Oxbridge."

Re: experience. Top programs do want you to have grad school-level experience, they just don't want it to be called grad school.

Maybe physics is different, but in computer science, at least in top US PhD programs, applicants with MS degrees are definitely expected to have research experience, and they are compared on the strength of that experience.  In this setting, experience does count more than "capability".  Or more accurately, research experience provides more concrete evidence of research potential than grades and test scores.

If your goal is US or UK universities, doing a Master's isn't the most efficient path, because it's not required nor is it necessarily helpful provided your undergraduate studies have been appropriately successful.
Sounds like your undergrad didn't go that well, so you are trying to compensate with MS. That's fair, it works for a lot of people, but keep in mind that just the MS by itself will not improve your application much. Instead, think of the MS as a way of turning yourself around. Did you not publish in undergrad? MS is your chance to show you can publish good papers. Did you not have strong recommendations? Work on that in your MS. Was your GPA not high? Make sure to take relevant classes in MS and ace them. Even better if you can turn the coursework into papers (even review papers) somehow.

How high should my grades be in order to have a fair chance of being accepted at top 10 universities?

Well, if your MS GPA is not 4.00 or almost that I would say your odds are not great. It's easier to have high grades from graduate classes and admission committees know this, but if your MS GPA is very high it's still something. Whereas if your MS GPA is low (say <3.50) that's even worse than having a low undergrad GPA, it's a huge red flag and will basically sink your app.
However, I think you are being too concerned with prestige of university. Things that really help get a good postdoc are:

Good publications
Fellowships
Connections (of your supervisor, collaborators, you, etc.)

So you are better off finding a research group that is a great fit in an okay university, than a group that's an okay fit in a great university. Graduating from a fancy school won't save you if your publication record is terrible. Having great papers might even if your school is not so well regarded. Likewise, within universities there can be a broad range of faculty. The best ones may be working in areas unrelated to you, and so they will push the prestige of the program but won't do much good to you. You also want to look at who you would actually work with and how good they are. Not just in terms of their reputation, but for supporting and preparing you for your future career.
And if you are doing an MS anyway, you should look at European universities that require an MS. This way the time you spent getting an MS is used more efficiently.


text:
Should I quit a project where I can't see how to contribute?
I am part of a collaboration (i.e., researchers from different universities, not formally tied to a grant or deadline).  We all met for a few days to develop an idea, and it seems quite promising.  However, I did not feel like I contributed much, and since the project is a bit outside my expertise, I am not sure how much more I can even contribute.  (Of course, I can learn from them, but I am not convinced that that is a good enough reason to be apart of the project.)
Should I quit the collaboration, so as not to "get in the way" of the others?  Or is it worth staying on, even if my main contributions are high-level (e.g., organizing shared files, adding code descriptions, sending "check-in" e-mails, etc.)?
EDIT: Some people have linked me to my own question, which I think is different in nature; here I am asking about how to handle the dynamics within a particular collaboration.  Perhaps the underlying question is really, are high-level contributions worthwhile? Also, I have spoken with the collaborators, and they are fine with me on the project, but I wonder if they are just being nice or political. So maybe there's imposter syndrome involved as well.

This is a bit too personal for a good answer here. But "high level" contributions are pretty valuable IMO.

Possible duplicate of How to tactfully "decommit" from projects?

What do you mean by "too personal"?  The question itself is too personal?

I am part of a collaboration [that] met for a few days to develop an idea, and it seems quite promising. However, I did not feel like I contributed much, and since the project is a bit outside my expertise, I am not sure how much more I can even contribute...Should I quit the collaboration, so as not to "get in the way" of the others? Or is it worth staying on, even if my main contributions are high-level (e.g., organizing shared files, adding code descriptions, sending "check-in" e-mails, etc.)?

You could share your concerns with your collaborators and ask them whether they want you to continue collaborating. You might discover you've already contributed more than you've realised. Regardless, you'll be making it clear what you can offer moving forwards.

Almost all academic journals explicitly demand in their submission guidelines that all listed authors should have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work. Organising shared files, commenting code, and sending check-in emails cannot qualify as a substantial intellectual contribution, in my opinion, and does not warrant co-authorship by most academic standards. Actual ideas to solve the problems at hand, or elaborations on your collaborators' ideas would.
Whether or not you are likely to contribute such ideas in the future, and therefore if you should stay in the project, is for you to decide.


text:
Publishing an article in a journal without a related degree
Are their any requirements to publish an article in a journal without a degree in the field? If so, what are they?
I was curious if people in general can publish in an journal when they have not obtained a degree in the field.

Journals publish whatever they feel is suitable for their audience and reputation. The problem may be to convince an editor that your manuscript is worth having a serious look at.

No editor will care (or for that matter could know) about your degree.  What matters is the contents of the submission, and if it meets the standard of the journal.  There are plenty of chemists or electrical engineers who publish in physics journal, plenty of physicists who publish in chemistry or engineering or math journals.

Of course it is important that people publishing 'across fields' are still trained in academic research and how to publish things more generally... it's many fold more difficult to publish without any prior experience or mentorship without coming off as a quack.

@BryanKrause I wish I could say that people with prior experience never come off as quacks...  but that’s a different question.

Yes, you can publish provided that the editor and the reviewers accept your paper, perhaps after revision. There are no "credentialing" requirements to publish in a field.
Some people are just self taught and rise to a high level. It is true, however, that the reviewers may look at your lack of degree and decide to be extra vigilant. But they should be vigilant with new degree candidates as well. Actually they should just be vigilant, of course.
There are some fields, however, that in some places you need to be careful about. But that is more about how you present yourself than what you write. For example, in some places it is illegal to call yourself an "engineer" without a degree and, perhaps, a license.

The reviewers will have scant reason to "look at your degree". If they don't already know your name (which might be the case if they were long-time experienced, and you were, too), they may wonder who you are, but most people would know that they shouldn't necessarily pursue that aspect, but should judge the paper on its own merits. If anything, reasonable referees are more forgiving and helpful to novices, than to people who should already know "how things are done" (=conventions).

@paulgarrett, I hope that by "forgiving" you mean more likely to offer good advice for improvement, rather than accepting papers of lesser quality. The reviewers aren't there to be "nice". They are there to assure only quality papers get published.

Anybody can call himself an engineer. What's (rather universally) forbidden is to affect having a degree or title issued by an official body.

@Karl, actually, no. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer#Regulation

@Buffy, I mean that flaws are not viewed as immediately fatal, for beginners, but admitting improvement, and maybe needing advice. In contrast, if I were sent a senior person's paper to referee, and it was written in the voice of a 25-year-old, I'd wonder what the heck was going on.

@Buffy Actually no: it became a freedom of speech issue. While "professional engineer" and "licensed engineer" are well regulated, "engineer" is different. They call train drivers engineers. It's only engineers that grossly overstepped hence the lawsuit. In many other fields, you have no problem calling yourself a "biologist" or "geologist" over "professional biologist" and "professional geologist".