Are cover letters sent to referees and should you highlight the contribution of your paper in the cover letter? How to write a cover letter to journal when submitting a manuscript?

In the letter, it is expected that I propose 5 referees. Is this the only reason to write a cover letter?
Will the cover letter be sent to the referees or only to Journal's staff?
I feel reluctant to praise my contribution in the cover letter. The article should defend it itself. Is the praising important part of the cover letter? Is it required?

It is also polite to write a cover letter, even if nobody asks for it. And the purpose is often to ease the process of finding the referees, so helping to do so by giving insights about the paper that cannot be write in the paper is a good thing.
If you mention potential referees, I guess it will not be sent to the chosen referees. Otherwise (in my experience) it is.
You don't have to praise your results in the cover letter. Just state shortly the results (say more than the abstract, less than the introduction). If you think that there are issues related to the paper, this is also the place to state them (conflict of interest, new way of considering something - which can hurt someone's feelings -, direct negative comment on related work, etc.). If you think that, because your paper is gap-bridging, you need reviewers from several fields, you should say it as well.

Nowadays when referees interact with the journal on-line, the cover letter (if any) will be available to them.  (Of course you send it electronically to the journal, right?)
No praising.


Advisable to visit other labs? Is it advisable to do a short (2-3months) visit to a different lab at a different university while doing a PhD? I would think that it would be good for setting up collaborations, but would a PhD supervisor be against this due to the time that would be lost doing so?

I am actually currently just preparing for such a collaboration/internship/exchange (leaving after summer). From day 1 of my PhD (both) my supervisors said that we should definitely look for such an opportunity during my second year.
Both of my supervisor think it is not a bad idea, moreover, they both think it is something very important given several restrictions:

that you do it around the middle of your PhD.
This is important because in the beginning, you're still new to the topic and trying to get a grip on everything important. You can not "give" almost anything back to the lab you are visiting, so it is not a fair exchange.

the project (3 months in my case), is something directly related to my PhD
Not just "has similarities", but maybe a sub-problem of the research direction I am currently on anyway due to my PhD. It is also important (mostly, for the grants), that it is something that the target laboratory is better suited for/equipped/has more experts than your own institution.

that it is around 3-4 months
The point is, much shorter than that, and it becomes a purely social / networking visit where you can possibly present your research in person and have other people present theirs, but not much more. On the other hand, more than 4 months will indeed be too long, as I am not expected to spend much more than that on a single idea even when I am working in my lab.

So, these were the restrictions. The benefits, however, are much more numerous:

obviously, networking. Especially if you plan to stay in academia, developing your own network of contacts as soon as possible is very important.
exchanging ideas. In addition to papers, presenting your own (and your labs) work in person is another way to disseminate ideas. Also, being exposed to different people, different approaches and different ideas might just jog some clogs that would otherwise take much longer to click in place.
strengthening the collaboration (between the participating laboratories): in a sense, you became an "ambassador" from your own institution to the host institution. A successful internship will be good for you, but it can also hold a lot of benefits for both institutions (that includes your supervisors) as if it goes well, they will be more likely to collaborate (more) in the future.
international experience. Where I am (France), people who plan to stay in academia and reach a permanent position are more than strongly encouraged to have an international experience. Basically, at least a few months internship abroad is a must for a permanent position, a year-long post-doc position or two abroad are much better. It is not a requirement, but always a person with international experience will get picked over the person with none.
both of these boil down to: post-doc. If is not unheard of that such an internship might actually be "vetting" the place for a post-doc. And this goes both ways: your host institution/professor sees if he likes working with you, and you see if you like it there.
specific benefit of the hosting lab. I have mentioned that there is many benefits of generally working in a different research environment and with different people for a while. But, specifically, there might be equipment, or test data, or an expert in the hosting lab that you just do not have in your institution.
diversity experience. If you have decided to stay in academia only on the basis of your PhD environment (as I have), you might not see the whole picture yet. Seeing different research labs, different environments, can only be a benefit.
publication While 3 months is not always enough to make a publication, you do want to get the most of the internship. Thus, most people get a publication out of it because they put a little bit extra effort (maybe not even consciously). And, your new publication will have a name of somebody other than your supervisor on it, which speaks to your ability to be able to work with different people successfully.

Now, of course, funding might be one obstacle. But other than that, if adequate funding is found, I see no reason for supervisors to object to such an idea.

The other answers are already very good. I'll add just one aspect that I haven't seen. I agree that visiting other labs for a couple of months is very useful... for people who plan on staying in academia. If you already plan on leaving academia after your Ph.D., the benefits that, e.g., Penelope lists are much less convincing compared to losing time - after all, what will you do with your improved academic network you will likely never use again?

Of course, that doesn't mean that such an external stay can't be productive even for people who leave for industry after their Ph.D. I'd just say that they might be better advised to either finish their Ph.D. quicker, or even try to spend some time in industry instead.


I noticed an error in a graded exam during office hours. Should I give the student the lower grade? You are a professor. A student comes to you with a question on an exam they have taken and received back. The student wrote 5 as the answer to a question, and they want to defend why 5 is a correct answer and they should receive full marks. Their argument is invalid, but you notice that the answer was misread as 9 and the student was given partial credit (5 is entirely incorrect and they should have received zero credit). Do you regrade the question, giving the student zero points, or do you leave it alone?

Arguments for regrading the question:

It would be unfair to the other students to give this student marks they did not earn.
Pursuing accurate grading is what is important and is the objective of the course.

Arguments for leaving the question alone:

The student came forward with a good-faith intention to learn why their argument wasn't correct, and shouldn't be penalized - this would break an implicit contract, and encourage students to not seek further feedback.
The unfairness actually stems from the misgrade itself, and there isn't anything wrong with leaving the misgrade alone now that it already exists. After all, if the student hadn't come forward, the misgrade would still have been left alone.

Let the grade stand, but point out your error.

The principle I try to follow is that students shouldn't be negatively affected by faculty mistakes (or that such effects should be minimized).

I wouldn't suggest adding an additional assignment to maintain the grade, since this is effectively another kind of penalty.  But I would suggest being transparent with the student, explaining your mistake, and showing them where they went wrong (otherwise they are deprived of the feedback that the correct grade would have provided).

If the exam were graded on a curve and re-grading this one question on Student A's test would materially improve other students' grades, I would give other students the boost (i.e. the grade they would have received had Student A's exam been correctly marked the first time) but leave Student A's grade intact.

I agree with the general consensus that it is best not to penalise the error in this case.  My view is that it is best not to create a disincentive for students to come to you to review their marks.  For this reason, I make it a practice in my courses to explicitly set this as a marking rule in the course outline.  That way the students are put on notice of my marking practice.  For whatever it is worth, here is the blurb I use in my course outlines:

  Review of Marks and Consistency of Marks

  The course lecturer will make every effort to mark all assessment items in a manner that is consistent from student to student.  If students believe that there is an inconsistency between the marking of their own work and the marking of another student’s work (e.g., they get different marks for an answer that is substantively the same) then they should raise this with the course lecturer for review.

  The only exception to this consistency principle is this: if the course lecturer finds that a student has accidentally been awarded a higher mark than should have applied for a question, or overall, during subsequent inquiry on the matter by students, the mark will not be reduced, except on request from the student.  This is done in order to avoid creating any disincentive for students to discuss marking issues with the course lecturer (i.e., students do not have to worry about raising issues of consistency and then being marked down as a result).


How to prevent students from having an unfair advantage on exams, when they are held on different days? I teach a writing course to different sections, across different days of the week. From the schedule, some students will take their mid-term exam early in the week, while others will take it later in the week. Recently, I found one student who was “just checking to see what the exam was like”, but was planning to go to another session to actually take the test. I realized there might be a variety of ways that students taking the exams on Friday would have an advantage over those taking it on a Monday.

I've taken the following steps in an attempt to address this problem:

I build multiple tests, e.g. "A", "B", "C", etc., which are of similar difficulty, have the same types of problems, but different subjects. "A" is given to one section, "B" to another, etc.
Provided a sample test that students can print and practice with and discuss with me in class.

Note that, there are several challenges to administering this:

The classes are large, and the school offers me no assistance in managing the exams.
Many students regularly attend my lectures during sections that they did not register for, so I will not easily recognize who belongs in which time.

Are there any additional steps I should consider to make sure the test is administered fairly?

There are various ways of preventing students from showing up on the wrong day or showing up more than once. The first step would just be to tell them straightforwardly that it's not allowed. You could also assign seats for the exam. Assigning seats has the added benefit of reducing opportunities for copying from a neighbor's paper; they can't just choose to sit next to a friend or sit next to someone they know is doing much better in the class.

  I teach a writing course [...] The classes are large, and the school offers me no assistance in managing the exams.

The enrollment of writing classes taught by a single instructor is usually limited because it's not practical for the instructor to grade large amounts of written work from a large number of students. At some schools, writing classes are large, but there are TAs who read papers. If you're a single instructor teaching a writing class to a large number of students, then that's a problem in and of itself; these issues with exam arrangements would then be a symptom of the more general problem.

I have had this issue occasionally when a student is sick and sits an exam at a later date from others.  Obviously you can write them a new exam, but that is quite onerous, and it is preferable to be able to use the same exam that other students have undertaken, so that there is consistency in the assessment.  To deal with this, I always instruct students that if they want to sit an exam at a later date than other students, they need to avoid finding out any information on the content or structure of the exam.  This puts the onus on them rather than the other students in their course.  Additionally,  whenever a student needs to sit an exam at a later date than other students, I have a (pre-prepared) statutory declaration attesting to the following:

  I am scheduled to sit an exam for ____________ (course) at ____________ (time) on ____________ (date);
  At the time I am scheduled to sit this exam, other students in this course have already undertaken the same exam;
  Except as detailed in point 4 below, I have not received any information from any other student in this course about the content or
  structure of this exam, including information communicated to me
  indirectly through a third party.
  I have received the following information communicated to me about this exam (use additional page if you run out of room):
  ______________________________________________________________   ______________________________________________________________   ______________________________________________________________   ______________________________________________________________   ______________________________________________________________   ______________________________________________________________   ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
  I do not believe that I have obtained any information about the content or structure of this exam that would put me at an unfair advantage over other students in this course.

When the student applies to sit the exam late, I ask them if they would be willing to fill out this form, to satisfy the university that they are not at an unfair advantage over other students.  So far, all the students I've dealt with have been happy to do this.  Students fill out and sign this form, and as part of the form, they disclose any information they have heard about the exam.  Some will say things like "I heard it was hard", etc.  Based on their answers I make a decision on whether they have received any information that would disqualify them from taking the exam.  Assuming everything is okay, I let them know that based on their answers I am satisfied that they are not at an unfair advantage and they then sit the exam.

So far as I can tell, students seem to take this document pretty seriously.  I cannot say for sure whether any students have lied on this document to sit an exam, without disclosing information they have found out about it.  Still, they take care when they're filling it out, and I make sure to advise them that it is a criminal offence to intentionally make a false statement in a statutory declaration.  So far I have not had any student who did not want to make a declaration, and I have not had any occasion where I have discovered a student who has given a false declaration.


When to use a doctoral title Last year, I finished and defended my doctoral thesis in a STEM field, and have continued working as a researcher in academia since. I am proud of my doctoral work, yet I feel somewhat uneasy about flaunting my newly earned title and refrain from doing so in general.

All senior people in my field have doctoral degrees, so it doesn't really signify anything. Besides, often when people use their title it seems like they do it to show they are an authority of sorts (Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, for instance). In my field of work that doesn't get you very far; if you're full of baloney people will realize in minutes.

I'm also hesitant about signing off e-mails as a Dr.; there's usually some back and forth with suppliers we work with, for instance. We really depend on their technical experience and I wouldn't want to come across as pretentious or elitist.

My basic question is this: in your experience, what are good circumstances to use ones doctoral title?

This may vary by country. I'm in the US, and use mine rather rarely. As you say, senior researchers all have PhDs (or MS + many years' experience), so it's hardly something significant in such contexts. I also don't use it in personal correspondence (e.g., bank paperwork) since that might lead to confusion about being an MD ("real doctor"). So what's left?

CV and other biographical documents
e-mail signature
formal presentations and documents (e.g., grant proposals)
anything related to undergraduate teaching

Note, professors might use "Prof." rather than "Dr." for all of these, particularly in contexts where it is obvious that professors are a subset of doctors.

Use "doctor" only in academia, only in formal circumstance, and then prefer the degree, e.g. Ph.D.  In real life, "doctor" is a person with medical credentials.

I answer my phone, "Doctor Brown" in case it's a student on the other end.  My email sig says, "Best regards, Bob" and then has "Bob Brown, Ph.D." on another line.

Business cards, professional stationery, etc. should always use the degree, not the honorific.  If you can afford engraved personal calling cards, then you can use something like "Dr. Bob Brown"

And by the way, congrats!


How to deal with advisor who wants me to submit dissertation on time even though there's a major problem? I'm on my last month before the deadline to hand in my dissertation.

I found a severe problem with the work that renders it pretty much pointless and I pointed out to my advisor that I would need some extra time to fix the problem and at least achieve the objective of the work. He basically told me to keep writing the dissertation in order to meet the deadline, without trying to fix the problem. My advisor is also going on a sabbatical, so it feels like he's pushing me towards handing in my dissertation regardless if the work is complete or not. This would pretty much guarantee that I'd have to provide bleak explanations to the committee that will discuss the work with me (because telling them that my advisor rushed me isn't an option).

I really don't want to create a conflict with my advisor. Plus, I'm having a terrible time trying to meet the deadline and my motivation is pretty much gone. I'm considering quitting the program without handing in my dissertation and pursue other career options.

Should I hand in the dissertation even though there's this problem that renders it useless? Or should I try to convince my advisor to get me more time to fix the problem (even though he seems reluctant)? Should I not do any of this and just simply quit the program?

The following is based on my experience in neuroscience. Not sure if this generalizes to other fields.

I think you have two ways to work here, and each is equally "right".

First, you can do exactly as your advisor suggests, working towards completing the thesis even though there's a major flaw. This happens probably more often than you think; I learned halfway through my own thesis that the work I was doing was not generalizable at all due to bad design, and overall was pretty bad science. Oops. The thing is, it's a dissertation, not a peer-reviewed publication. The goal of your dissertation is for you to demonstrate to your committee that you know how to perform research, not for you to contribute overall to science. Your advisor's pushing you to complete your thesis may be him espousing this very idea; namely, your fixing everything up should be saved for your peer-reviewed publications, not for your thesis. Given that (in neuroscience) it is a pretty rare event for someone to refer back to a dissertation thesis when performing a literature search, the fact that your thesis document may be rendered moot isn't such a big deal; mention it in the introduction, results, and conclusion sections and just publish as is. Fix the problem in the journal articles.

The second approach is that, if it has your name on it, it should be publication-worth, and dang if you're going to let something with this obvious an error be in the public record.

Honestly, I don't think either one is wrong. The first one can save you valuable time and advance your career by months/years, and if you're in a field where your thesis doesn't mean much then it's probably the right choice. The second one may make you look better overall, and may be a requirement if your field places more weight on the thesis document itself.

Not sure if that helps, but it may give you some perspective.

Switch  advisors !!! Sure, he's going on a sabbatical, and as above, maybe find a sympathetic committee member to explain the problem as to why you can't get more time.


Why do big funders not act as publishers? Scientific publishing absorbs a lot of money from the budgets of scientific organisations, either by publication fees or subscription fees, and many feel that the value added by the publisher is questionable (source). That money comes from funders such as NIH, NSF, the EC Framework Programme, national research councils and large charities (Wellcome, Gates). Why do such funders not close the circle and offer a not-for-profit mechanism for publication, either individually or collectively?

Many (most, I suspect) scientific societies operate journals, and some of these offer travel grants or small project grants for research with no restrictions on the submission of resulting papers to their own journals, so I don't see how it could be a conflict-of-interest thing. Some universities do the same. I also see sites like PubMed Central and EuropePMC which are funded by research funders and act as repositories for full-text publications.

There are some suggestions of a move in this direction from the mathematics and physical sciences (link), although this would be run by the academic community, not the funders.

[edit] I forgot about this when writing the question, but PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases was started using a $1.1 million grant from the Gates Foundation, so this is a relatively high-profile example of a journal that was (at launch) directly funded by a grant-funding body. And I'd also forgotten that PLoS is explicitly non-profit, although they do use the income from some journals to help support the others financially so some individual journals might run at a profit.

[edit2] I'd also somehow forgotten this announcement back in July that Wellcome was launching a journal called "Wellcome Open Access". This one will only accept submissions from Wellcome-funded researchers, but will also accept negative results, null results and data-only papers, so will arguably overlap less with traditional publishers.

As you note, in a major sense this is actually already done on a large scale by the NIH in the US.  The NIH requires that all publications resulting from its funding be made freely available on PubMed under an open access license within 12 months.  While PubMed Central does not do peer-review, it does provide the other half of the functions of an archival publication, in providing hosting and curation.

By doing this, the NIH is accomplishing most of the goals you mention, because there is now much less pressure to subscribe to lots of high-cost journals.  At the same time, however, this is better for the NIH than running journals itself for at least the following reasons:

Running journals does have a significant cost, even if that cost is often hidden in free society journals and overcompensated for in for-profit journals.  Forcing compliance as a byproduct of funding is probably much cheaper.
If the NIH started running journals, it would be competing with traditional journals, and thus would obtain much less coverage than it does by just forcing public deposit of their articles.
Scientific publication is highly international, and even the biggest countries are a minority of the researchers in any significant field. There may thus be significant perceived or real conflicts of interest if a major government funder is running the peer review process for other nations.

In short, it appears to be currently much more efficient to accomplish such goals by using the compulsory power of contract clauses than by investing in competition with the existing publication ecosystem.

They would be biased.

If you fund research you want/need it to be successful. Success in academia is measured in (metrics based on) published articles. That is, you could manipulate your (and your competitors') success ratings by accepting more research that you yourself have funded (and less of others).


Having team-members split the grade among them by their personal contribution In a project-based class the submission is in teams of 2 (self-assigned teams).
In most teams, the grade is the same for both members.
However,  in some teams, I suspect that most of the work was done by one member, while the other was a "free rider". The suspicions are based on GitHub commits and on interaction during the semester. However, I do not have clear-cut proofs since I do not know how they split the work among them at home. I can test them personally, but this is not sufficient since it is possible that the free-rider knows what the other person did.
I am not allowed to change the grade structure in retrospect, so I thought of an idea that is based on mutual agreement: if the grade that the team deserves is X, I will tell them that their total grade is 2 X, and ask them to agree on a fair division of the grade among them. If they do not agree, then the grade is just split equally between them as usual. Effectively, this gives the free riders a chance to behave fairly and give some points to their friends who did most of the work.
The advantage is that the team members know much more than me what work each of them did. The disadvantage is that this may cause quarrels among team members. Is this a good idea?
EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. I am now convinced that this scheme might create psychological and social problems  that are better avoided.

A problem I see here is that this scheme may motivate people to divide the points "tactically". Say our group project is worth 10 points and I only need 5 for my goal (which may be the least passing grade or the best grade or whatever). Then of course I would take only 5 points and give 15 to my collegue (which is more than the project is worth).
Also, it might motivate people to look for their partners tactically: If I am somebody who does not trust other people and wants to do everything themselves (something which should ideally be discouraged in group projects), I choose the person who cares least about their grades as a partner and get much more points than my project is worth.
Moreover, with this setting, you treat the grades as some currency. students will find it okay to do less/more work because they can themselves discuss and haggle about the grade they got. IMO this is also not something which should be encouraged.

My experience of this is that it is helpful to survey the group members asking each of them who contributed what to the project and whether they felt that the other members had done their share of the work.  When I do these surveys I nearly always find that all groups report that there was a fair division of work.  I also make a point of asking questions of the various team members when they present their work.  After those two steps, I can feel fairly confident in giving everyone on the team the same grade.
Sometimes I do find a problem, either in the responses to the survey or in responses to questions during the presentation.  In those situations, I meet with all of the students in the group and try to clarify who did what.  If there's a free rider, I will lower that student's grade.  I don't raise the grade of other students in the group.


Does it make sense to apply for assistant professorship positions before Ph.D. graduation? In the course of browsing a couple of positions for brand-new (STEM-related) assistant professorships (in North America), I am wondering whether it does make sense if one applies for such positions before her Ph.D. graduation. For example, an advertisement asserts that

These positions require a Ph.D. or equivalent in engineering or a
closely related discipline at date of hire

The job announcement has only supplied a period for application submissions, say, Nov. 2020 until May 2021. My Ph.D. defense is around early 2021, but I think if I wait till that time, the positions may have already been occupied without any chance of competition for me. But if I act before graduation, will my potential application be considered when I have not yet sealed my Ph.D.?

Most people apply for positions while still students. That is normal. The "date of hire" could mean various things, depending on the institution. Don't worry too much about it, and apply. If there is any sort of issue they might be able to finesse it a bit, but likely they intend that early 2021 graduates are part of their intended outreach.
The date of hire is not usually interpreted as the date you get an acceptance letter, but the date you actually become an employee (with a paycheck).

In the 21st century, > 90% of assistant professors of engineering (and other STEM fields I am familiar with) have a PhD in hand and postdoctoral experience before they get their job.
Even if you already have completed your PhD, you face steep competition.

These positions require a Ph.D. or equivalent in engineering or a closely related discipline at date of hire

This statement is traditional boilerplate which in no way indicates the (much more difficult to get) qualifications needed to actually get the job.
Note that in some humanities fields, it is traditional not to hire people who already have PhDs as assistant professors.


How do you judge the quality of a journal? A colleague and I recently submitted a paper to a journal with an impressive-sounding name, the "International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Computational Research". According to their website,

  IJAICR is a referred [sic] journal in the field of computer science, artificial intelligence and soft computing methods.

It was accepted two days after we submitted it. That's too fast. We were suspicious. Although the journal said that all papers are peer-reviewed, we could not see how that was done in two days. Plus, we received no comments from the reviewers. Also, the submission guidelines didn't ask for a "blind" copy (without our names or any references to who we were).

But wait, there's more.

The acceptance letter asked us to send them US$300 to publish it. We did not. We've withdrawn our submission and will submit a new version of the paper to a more reputable journal in the coming months.

How might we make a better choice of respectable journals before we submit next time?

The way I usually choose journals is by looking at where people I trust/follow publish, and where previous work was published. It is usually not too hard to compare the quality your work to the quality of the work you are citing, and chose a target based on that. Unless your field is highly mutli-disciplinary, you will see the same journals/conferences popping up again and again in your references; submit to one of those.

Before submitting, however, it is always important to look at a few articles from previous issues. This will give you a second gauge of quality for the journal and also let you pick up on any formatting and presentations quirks that might be present in the publication.

Quality of the journal is reflected in your own experience.

When you've reached the level when you start thinking about publishing in your field of expertise,

and you find out about a journal you've never heard before through several years of undergraduate and postgraduate studies,

it is a good enough reason to be suspicious and cautious.


How to professionally handle sexist remarks by a student? Suppose that you noticed a student saying a sexist remark to you, and the student is completely unaware of it. In the spirit of fighting sexism, I feel that I should maybe say something. But on the other hand, as a person on the higher end of the power spectrum, I feel that I would be bullying the student if I were calling him out on his sexist remarks (which he is probably not aware of).

If I witness a student engaging in a sexist behavior, should I call him/her out? How can I do this without making the student feel intimidated? What would be the professional way to deal with such a situation?

My question is:

If a student commits a clear sexist behavior in front of you, will you call him/her out? If so, how will you approach it so that you don't appear patronizing/bullying?

(I made a major edit, because many answers addressed my "background" story rather than my actual question. I do not see any satisfactory answer that fully addresses my question.)

This is similar to the person of color getting stopped by the police. Is it just a random stop, or is it racism? Very hard to tell without statistics on large sample sizes, or direct evidence of racism. Would the student have made the same accusations if you were male? Possibly, but very hard to tell without direct evidence of sexism.

The student could be complaining just because he got a bad grade. The backing off after you told him the syllabus was from another professor could be because that professor was male. But it could also be because that professor was as you said, very senior. Or because you showed him that indeed more people used that same syllabus.

My advice in general would be to fight sexism when you have clear evidence that gender played a role. In other cases: address accusations like this on their merits or lack thereof. If people find that their accusations towards women are unfounded, that also combats sexist views.

Hopefully this post helped a bit.

Regarding your edit and how to deal with explicit sexism: I would call them out on it. However exactly how to deal with it and whether appearing as a bully is a concern is difficult to say without an explicit case. Is falls in the general case of students making inappropriate/unacceptable comments or actions. Maybe a guideline could be: is it severe enough to contact other people in the university? If not, you might admonish it more lightly if concerns about being a bully are top of your mind. If it is severe enough to contact the administration or the person at your institution to contact out of line students, let it be their decision. You can never be accused of being a bully if the punishment came for an independent third party. Especially if you presented the case to that third party plain and factually, with the question being: what should we do now?

Again it is hard to talk in general about these things. That is why I focused on the more specific case, because I could be more specific about it.

I would not confront the student directly.

In the U.S., bias incidents should be reported to your university's Title IX coordinator.  If you have any doubts as to whether the incident is clear enough to report, you can talk it over with the Title IX coordinator first.

Your university probably has some online documents about building a culture of respect, and a campus code of conduct.  Looking these over might help you clarify the issues.


Can I take master's level courses if I decide to do my PhD in Germany (astrophysics/particle physics)? I know that it is not compulsory to taking classes during the PhD (in Germany). But if I want to take some classes in subjects that I missed during my master program, is it possible to take some classes 2-3 in the related field that my PhD is in?
I want both take the exam and follow the course

Following the course will usually not be a problem, since lectures are generally public. Exceptions are, e.g., seminars with a limited number of places. Also, if the lecture hall happens to be too small (highly unlikely) for all the students, you may be expected to leave.
Check the examination regulations of the PhD program that you would enroll in. Sometimes acceptance for PhD studies can be conditional on taking a few extra courses, depending on what the "Promotionsausschuss" decides. If that can be the case, taking the exam should be no problem, as there needs to be some way to taking the exam in this case.
Getting some kind of certification that you took and passed the exam may be tricky, though. You may have to ask the respective lecturer for a letter stating that, as there are normally no official transcripts for PhD studies.
As already written in a comment, you should check with your advisor if she/he would not oppose taking courses, though - at least if you are not on a scholarship. PhD studies typically works by getting employee status, and using normal employee working hours for such courses may not be welcome. But even on a scholarship, some advisors/supervisors may not like that.

It would depend on the department and the university's policies. You can check their website or mail the staff regarding it


Correcting professors' lecture notes One of my profs in college has (after years of students asking him to do so) put forth a syllabus with all the material for the class he is teaching.

With the help of 3 students from previous years (who did most of the writing), he made a neat 90 page syllabus covering what is taught during lectures.

My year is the first year that'll benefit from this as it was finished early September 2017 (currently in October 2017). However, as is to be expected, some typos still exist, and some little mistakes in formulas do too. I read through it and compiled a Word doc containing all the typos and mistakes I could find and was wondering if it would be badly received if I sent him an email with those. He has asked his students to tell him if they found mistakes, so I know I should probably let him know about those, but I'm not sure as to whether fixing typos will be seen as arrogant or even remotely relevant, since I'm probably the only one getting triggered by them because of my OCD.

Thanks !

I can only speak for myself, and I'm just a postdoc.

I would be indifferent if someone pointed out one or two typos; on the one hand that's helpful, on the other a bit pedantic.

However, if I received a "Word doc containing all the typos and mistakes [you] could find" in a 90 page document, I would be delighted and grateful.

As an aside, I'm currently working through a textbook to brush up my statistics skills. I'm trying to collect the mistakes that I stumble upon in order to send them to the author once I've finished the book, so he can correct them in the next edition.

You need to stay firm , send him the doc state that's it's unaceptable for a university profesor have typos in any text he sends his students and offer to corect/mantain the document in exchange for creds


Is it pointless to bring up poor supervision during PhD viva? I should defend my PhD in the UK near the end of the year.

Unfortunately I fell into the class of horribly supervised PhD students - with an ill-defined research project and an absent supervisor who steered me into so many different topics of my field that I'm convinced my results chapters lack depth and analysis.

For that specific reason I seriously doubt the originality and the importance of my research work, which will be thoroughly assessed during the viva.

Can the internal and external reviewers be receptive about objective arguments related to poor supervision during the 3-4 years of research? Or are they bound to discuss only the contents of the thesis?

PS - This is not an opinion-based or a stress-induced question where I expect "don't worry" answers. I'm well aware a PhD is a self journey and one should cope with difficult supervision. The question pertains to the viva only.

I'd suggest that the viva is possibly the worst time to do this. Almost anything you say could be interpreted as whining and trying to deflect responsibility for any shortcomings. Many things you might say would be countered in the minds of the reviewers whether expressed by them or not.

Whether you bring it up yourself or just reply to questions or comments with complaints about your advisor or others would seem, to me at least, as unprofessional.

If you have issues about the performance of your advisor, make it a separate issue in an appropriate venue after the degree is in hand.

Others have addressed the main part of your question; I want to refer to the following:

  ... I seriously doubt the originality and the importance of my research work, which will be thoroughly assessed during the viva.

Thoroughness. Let's start with the third part of this sentence: I don't know how defenses/viva's look like in the UK; but I do know PhD candidates tend to over-estimate the level of scrutiny, or the nature of the scrutiny, these events involve. I believe that PhD research work should be thoroughly assessed, but for better and for worse - that often isn't nearly as serious as one might expect.

Importance. Importance is at least partly subjective, and it is well known that most fields of research have "fashions" regarding what's important and what isn't. I'm not saying every PhD work is of the same importance or significance - but this is not an aspect you will be considered to have "failed" in. Your opposition panelists may well ask you about applicability, and may express some disappointment if you don't have a good answer for them. But it is quite acceptable to respond with "Potential uses of this work are X Y and Z, but, in hindsight, it is not as consequential than we had initially hoped." If you can add something like "But if we change ABC to be DEF, this will open up the possibility of HIJ" - that's also good. Doesn't matter that in all of your work you stuck to ABC.

Originality. Now this is the problematic part. If you mean that your work is "not original enough" in the sense of not being inspiring/surprising/insightful/groundbreaking - that's unfortunate, but assuming you've done a sufficient amount of decent-though-not-great work of this kind, you'll pass. If, on the other hand, you're saying some of your work has actually been done by others, only with slightly different notation/terminology/field - that is a serious problem and could cost you more than your PhD. If that is the case, you must find a way to announce / disclose this state of affairs this at once - and under no circumstances reach a point where your opposition brings this up. Even if it means putting your degree in jeopardy, it's the better and safer alternative. You haven't given details so I can't be more specific in my advice on this matter.


Gaps between PhD and employment? What is the longest gap of unemployment that will likely not affect your chance of getting an academic position (post-doc or faculty)?

For example if you graduate from your PhD in December or January but most post-doctoral/faculty positions in your field don't start until May-Sept, is a partial year's worth of unemployment looked down upon in future job applications? If not, what is the longest gap that won't look so negative while applying to future jobs?

I am not sure how you are using the term unemployed. Clearly someone with a paid academic position (e.g., adjunct teaching or lab tech) would not be considered unemployed. I am not sure if you consider an unpaid lab tech or a paid burger flipper as being employed. To me the real issue is being out of the field.

If you cannot get a relevant paid position and but can afford to be without income for a few months, then a year gap, and probably longer, isn't problematic. In fact many labs will hire unpaid researchers. In this case you could continue to conduct new research, publish, apply for grants, and gain new contacts. You could likely stay in an unpaid position as long as you could afford it without any affects on future job prospects. If you cannot get an unpaid research position then it really depends on how long you can milk publications from your past research and produce new research without any affiliation to a research group.

If you cannot get a relevant paid position and cannot afford to be without income for a few months you can sometimes find paid work in a related field. Working as a paid lab tech (e.g., washing test tubes) or adjunct teaching. These types of jobs won't help you publish more or get grants and in fact take time away from publishing, research, and getting grants. That said they can provide a limited set of new skills and cotnacts so are probably sustainable for a year or so.

In the absence of getting even a peripherally related job taking an unrelated job (e.g., burger flipper) even for a short period (i.e., months) gap can be problematic. Not only will it slow down publishing, research, and grants it may make you less flexible about being able to take up a new related position (e.g., how much notice would you have to give). You are also not building new skills or contacts.

A lot of the impact will depend on how important publication speed is in your field. If a few month delay in publishing will result in you being scooped, any gap is probably bad. Similarly the ability to do research without any resources will help you weather a gap. Similarly, if your field has new instigator grants with a clock that starts ticking upon graduation then gaps are bad.

Form a corporation.  That can keep you employed until you get the position you want.  Who knows, you might even figure out a way to make money in the process!

For example, I am a software engineer.  I have had a C-Corporation for the last 20 years.  Whenever I'm between contracts / jobs, I work on something I've wanted to pursue personally.  It could be writing an iPhone app, or integrating a PC into my home theater system.  If it takes me long enough to find another gig, I'll list my experience doing whatever it was I accomplished as an entry in my resume.  It keeps me from having unusually long gaps, and occasionally, I'll even generate revenue doing it.

For another example, a friend of mine is a research chemist.  Together, we designed a gas chromatograph that was accurate enough to be useful, yet inexpensive enough to be available to even high schools.  This was a number of years ago and we were using a Commodore-64 to control the temperature of the oven containing the stationary phase coil, as well as collecting the detector data in real time.  As we never brought this product to market, I would classify it as either an R&D effort, or a proof of concept project.  Either way, it was useful from a resume perspective.

I actually thought this was a helpful and viable idea and I would not have mentioned it if I didn't.

Regardless, a little evaluation of a potential business opportunity probably wouldn't hurt most career academics.


How do I explain my failed career decision to a potential postdoctoral/academic manager/employer, when I'm almost seven years past my PhD? First a bit of chronological background:
PhD in pure math (2 publications, 1 preprint), 1 year of postdoc in pure math (unproductive) 2 years of postdoc in computational medical imaging (1 publication each, and one of these postdocs were in application of differential geometry and machine learning for medical imaging), 1 year of postdoc in computer vision (unproductive, as I was partially spending my time to move to industry - I accept the blame here, mostly as a data scientist or machine learning researcher), 2 years of failed industry experience (4 jobs, all permanent, all let go within the first 4-5 months in the respective trial periods). So in essence, 4 years of postdoc, partially productive and 2 years of failed industry experience after PhD.
What's going on now:
I've a strong realization that the traditional industrial positions are not from me, and I'm planning to go back to academia, as well as on my way to obtain my freelance status, so I'd be able to consult on the side. But since I worked 2 years in industry immediate prior, I feel I need to get a long (at least a year and a half) project to get back to the full research mode, find a line of projects and use that to get a permanent position. These projects wouldn't be in pure math, but rather in theoretical machine learning, statistics or applications of differential geometry/topology to solve data analysis problem.
Immediate next - a potential answer to a question I might be facing during my next hiring:
I'll be having a few interviews, and I'm sure some postdoctoral advisors would ask me why I'm not looking for a permanent position, since I'm already 6 years past my PhD. My honest answer would be: "Initially I thought that the academia wasn't for me, that the stakes of getting a permanent position are pretty low, and even then, I thought it wasn't rewarding enough, me being based in Europe and not planning to move. So I wanted to move to industry but in R&D and I thought I'd be doing almost fundamental research; but I was wrong - the industry mindset and environment I found to be very different than the academic one, and hence I'm realizing my mistake only now, and trace my way back into academia."
My question(s):
But if I do give that honest answer as I wrote above, will it hurt my chance to get into postdoc positions that I'd want to get into? I don't want to paint a wrong image of myself to my future academic employers, but I fear that if I tell them that I moved into industry as I thought I wasn't good enough for academia and it was not rewarding enough, then my potential academic employers might think that I'm coming back to academia as a second choice and not out of passion. But the thing is that I had to go through a two year period of self-realization, and yes I did make a career mistake, which I'm planning to rectify. So how do I convey this truth in a manner that doesn't make me look like I wanted to run away from fundamental research (in fact I didn't, I planned to do it, but outside the scope of academia, which did fail and seemed almost non-existent) and work against me in an academic hiring process?
If you want more details about the reasons for being let go:
They're mentioned as comments to the answer by @jerlich.

I think the answer you have now isn't so bad. But you could be painting yourself in better light. Rather than saying jobs in academia in the pay range and stability you aspired to were too competitive, say you preferred the higher pay and stability you could access in industry. It's the same sentiment but doesn't point to you somehow failing. Many good people get bad luck and don't make it to tenure, and we all know industry offers a wider range of people a better material life in many aspects.
So for example I would tweak this to:
"Initially I wanted to move into industry for (better reasons to reference: higher pay and a more stable lifestyle, choosing where you get to live, etc). So I moved to industry. In R&D and I thought I'd be doing almost fundamental research; but I was wrong - the industry mindset and environment I found to be very different than the academic one, and hence I'm realizing my mistake only now, and trace my way back into academia."
And then maybe say that you've realized it's important to you to be doing fundamental research, so important that the pros of getting back on the academic track now outweigh the cons for you.
Caveat: I'm not in mathematics but in my field your publication record doesn't justify looking for a permanent position, and that would be immediately known to people interviewing you for a postdoc. They may instead phrase this question more like "what have you been up to?" Or maybe even directly ask, "why did you leave industry?"

Permanent academic jobs almost always involve teaching and managerial tasks as significant components, whereas postdoc jobs can be almost entirely research-focused. Hence, if you like research better than teaching or management, that could be a valid reason to apply for a postdoc job rather than a permanent academic job at any stage of your career.  (Although having once used that reason, it becomes trickier to justify applying for a permanent academic job later.)


Registering systematic review in Prospero I have recently submitted a systematic review (SR) to a journal. One of the reviewers pointed out, that my SR was not registered in Prospero, an international prospective register of systematic reviews. While I agree it would have been of good practice to register my SR, my current understanding is that registration of SR is not yet mandatory¹.

How can I address this reviewer’s remark?

¹Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1:2

First of all, If you don't think it's mandatory, and you don't want to do it, just say it's intentionnal.

Since, as you said in comments, this database is apparently used when you plan to undertake a SR, it would have no value for you to register in it, since you are already in SR.

But you may ask the reviewer why he got the urge for saying that , and if he thinks it would be interesting for you to register on it anyway.


Ethics of "Double Dipping": Helping 2 professors with research during the summer Some Context:
Over the past year, I have built relationships with 2 of the professors at my university. In this case, I was referred to Professor X by Professor Y. The professors work in two related fields (physics) and are friends.

I worked with Professor X on some of my research a few months ago and it went well. Professor X is allowing me to help him with his lab research over the summer and I am honored to do so. Of course, it would not be an every day thing and we will be working out a schedule.

Consequently, I spoke with Professor Y about a summer spot before starting my research with Professor X. Nothing was formalized here and I haven't spoken to Professor Y since beginning my research. However, I am very interested in helping Professor Y in her lab this summer.

My Question: Would it be seen as poor taste to ask Professor Y about helping in her lab this summer? In my email I would explain that I would also be working with her colleague.

I don't want to jeapordize my position or my relationship with either one of them, so, would it be considered "double-dipping" to help with both of them? If it is, would this have any adverse effects?

One option would be to ask Professor X if he would be alright with this. I am not sure about this option because again I don't want to put our relationship on weird terms.

This is undergraduate level, in the UK.

This shouldn't be a problem. The professors aren't your employers who demand 100% of your time - they might not even be paying you - so they are not likely to expect you to commit to their lab and their lab only (it'd also be unreasonable if they expect this). Meanwhile by working in two labs you're maximizing your exposure, which can only be a good thing for you.

The only serious consequence I can see from this arrangement would be that you might not be able to commit enough time to actually achieve something substantial. If you aren't going to get any real research done in both labs, you might as well commit to one lab only.

I think a lot depends on your position with Prof. X.

If this is really "research", then it should require essentially unlimited time -- the more time you put in, the further you will get. In this case, even asking about working with Prof. Y shows that you don't understand this. While this may seem harsh, the fact is that hiring undergraduates is usually less efficient than doing the work oneself, so it rarely makes sense to hire a student that is intentionally reducing their productivity even further by working in two labs. That said, you are an undergraduate, so you should be able to ask Prof. X about what's appropriate without consequences.
But this may not be really "research." You mention a "schedule" and that it won't be every day -- maybe this is more like an hourly labor position ("lab tech")? In this case, I see no reason why you couldn't tell Prof. X that you're looking for another position on your off-days...this would limit your freedom to accept additional work in Prof. X's group, should the opportunity arise...but maybe that's worth it to explore Prof. Y's group.

Edit: Leaving this up, despite the downvotes...while it would be nice if every undergraduate could work in dozens of groups before committing to a sub-field, the fact is that undergraduate research assistants take a lot of the supervisor's time and produce relatively little, so it just makes no sense for the supervisor to hire undergraduate research assistants that are intentionally dividing their limited time among multiple groups. As I said, the situation is completely different for "lab tech" type positions.


A life of PhD: is it feasible? In the next year I will (hopefully successfully) graduate from a PhD programme in pure mathematics. The location is (continental) Western Europe, the topic of the thesis is arithmetic geometry, if it matters. During my PhD experience I have found out the following things

being a pure math PhD student is a relatively stress-free existence for me. I can just waste all my time learning some math and occasionally writing some papers;
the stipend does suck but I am frugal person from a very poor country so I do not care that much (nor do I have a family to feed);
if I could, I would not mind spending what is left of my life in a PhD programme. In particular, I do not feel any intrinsic motivation to try to get a tenure-track position.

The question is: is it feasible for me to keep applying and getting accepted to pure math PhD programmes before I die or decide to retire? To clarify, I don't really think that I will be a problematic student; during my PhD programme, I got 3 publications accepted in reasonable journals (rank A in AustMS ranking) and I think I could maintain a similar rate of work.

Are there any "magic words" I could tell the committee that considers the applicants to improve my chances?

Holding a PhD in math would usually disqualify you from being admitted into a PhD program in mathematics. Even if it does not do so officially, I'd consider it next to impossible to get scholarships.

That said, being a postdoc in math is not really much different from being a PhD student. However, even being a postdoc forever is not easy. Many funding sources have restrictions on how long ago your PhD may have been - after 5 years you already have fewer options, and continuing long after 10 years will see you face exclusion from many funding sources, as well as a strong social pressure to get a "proper" job (i.e., a faculty position).

There is someone who works in my office who actually seems to be doing just that.  She is doing a second PhD even though she apparently already has one, but I'm not sure if there is some loophole because she obtained the first one in a different country or something like that.

In general, it's not a viable option though.  It's like having multiple Bachelor's degrees.  Some people do have two Bachelor's degrees, where they somehow re-trained and paid for the second degree in order to change career paths.  In the same way, they are likely people who have two PhD's (or equivalent) for some reason related to change of career path or something like that but in general living from one PhD to the next is not going to be possible any more than a person could just perpetually live doing one Bachelor degree after another: at some point funding is just not going to exist as you can't just fund someone to be a perpetual student indefinitely.


Precarious employment in academia: Why is there no labor union in academia? Many positions in academia are precarious, when it comes to employment common behavior in academia would never be acceptable in industry. This applies equally to PhD students as well as to junior academics:

PhD students are not guaranteed employment at university
after working there for 5 years.
PhD students are paid little considering their degree: In
Germany e.g. it is common practice for professors to only pay
    half-time posts.
It's common practice for young academics to work well beyond 40 hours even for PhD students that are
only paid half-time posts. Work regulations regarding maximum worked hours and weekends are often ignored.
Junior academics are unlikely to land an unlimited full-time job at a
university. Directly after graduation this is impossible and even after years of more precarious work as a postdoc only a fraction get unlimited employment.
With exception of CS and engineering very little universities care about providing an exit strategy for junior academics and PhD students after academia. (While change in industry is possible in quite a few fields, proper (additional!) training would be much needed.)

These issues are well known. Fundamentally academia is producing too many PhD students and too little full-time positions (not just professorships) for their respective fields which causes much of the mentioned problems.

I feel like the passion almost all young academics and PhD students have for their subject brings a lot of naivety when it comes to employment conditions, which is exploited.

Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change these working conditions or a push to establish labor unions?

Why is there no labor union in academia?

Some universities have unions, others do not.  The scope of the unions varies.

  Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change this?

Many people support changing academia, so the premise of this question is wrong.  The reality is that change is hard, especially when the old system obtains lots of cheap labor.

  how successful have they been in the past?

Unionization usually results in an increase in pay and job security, but the change is small.

For problems 1-5, the solution is simple:  Don't get a PhD.  As long as many people try to get PhDs, economic forces will encourage these problems to persist.

These issues are well known. Fundamentally academia is producing too many PhD students and too little full-time positions

More precisely, academia is not making money. We're not even trying to make a profit, where would the money come from?

  Why is there no movement inside academia trying to change these working conditions or a push to establish labor unions?

Union of what? Union would only make senese if there is money to pay salary, but it isn't the case in academia.


PhD applications and explaining poor results I had a couple of bouts of depression during my masters degree which resulted in very bad grades. Is it a good or bad idea to mention this in PhD applications to explain my grades?

First of all, I hope you are doing fine now, have recovered from depression, or are on the way to recovery!
I believe that there is no need to give insight in your mental health to a possible future employer. I would advise you to generally speak about „health conditions“ instead of disclosing your mental state, if you feel the need to explain your grades.


Discussing diversity and underrepresented groups in personal history statement for PhD application I am applying for a PhD program in US. The university has asked to address the following in personal history statement:

  How your perspectives or activities contribute to social or cultural diversity and/or make you sensitive to the experiences of underrepresented groups

Honestly, the statement does not make sense. What is social or cultural diversity? Why it is important? Who are exactly underrepresented groups? What is experiences of underrepresented groups? I would be grateful if someone help me to understand this statement and give some examples about it. Many thanks.

"How your perspectives or activities contribute to social or cultural diversity and/or make you sensitive to the experiences of underrepresented groups"

I think a useful way to approach this question is to not think about it in terms of race, but instead consider what it means to be socially diverse. As an example, consider this brief response to the question:

"Growing up in a small farming community in Canada has given me an opportunity to see how many of those in my community - many of which have never stepped foot on a university campus - can benefit from feeling represented in institutions that they might not naturally feel apart of. Growing up in a rural community gives me the advantage of being able to personally relate to people who might not have college degrees, or even high school degrees, and develop a level of trust when communicating scientific information that might be the topic of the day in the news. When I come to U of X, I hope to be able to share and encourage this level of empathy among my peers to help unify communities that might otherwise feel divided."

So, what's happening here? In this paragraph I mention that I am an international student - as I assume you are - and I am reflecting on how my own experience in my country might be able to bring about some type of positive change to the United States and the immediate community I am hoping to be in. In the example that I listed above, the 'underrepresented community' happens to be just the local people I grew up with. What I believe you should do is examine your own lifestyle in your home country and think about what you have experienced that might bring about positivity in your studies. Your response does not have to include gender or race because there are TONS of communities that might be relatively disadvantaged to you - these could even be immigrants from your own country that are not in touch with the institution you want to attend.

The question you ask is a challenging one, because it's actually a somewhat divisive question: Do you talk about racial disparities? Do you talk about gender disparities? What you want to really try to reflect on is how your own story can bring about some type of positive change when you go to the institution that you want to attend. It's a tough question to answer, but hopefully this response gives you some type of idea about what you want to say.

This question suggests you are not prepared for doctoral study at the University of California.  Sign yourself up for a diversity training program.

In my opinion, the prompt is code for "Tell us how you will work effectively with people who are different from you."  Answer that appropriately for the context of your discipline, and you will be okay.


Is it advisable to contact a professor if I fear failing a graduate-level course? I am an international master's student in the US. I am currently finishing my last semester of courses.

This semester has been very tough on my personal life because of some family issues. I also had major unexpected technical difficulties with one of the projects which made it practically impossible for me to finish it in time. As a result, my performance in one of the courses suffered in the second half of the semester (I was doing well in the first half). I just had the final exam and I feel that it went badly. I am now scared that I might fail the course and have to come back again in Fall,  especially because that means I have to move back to the city and spend more money on tuition.

I am confident that I would have done much better on the course had my circumstances been different. I am therefore considering contacting the professor to explain my situation in the hopes that he won't give me a failing grade.

So my question is this: is it advisable to contact my professor in this situation? If so, how can I approach the topic? What should I avoid discussing?

Perhaps I should mention, I don't feel very comfortable with him on a personal level, and he has been generally strict with grading guidelines.

When I read the headline, my immediate impulse was to say "yes, of course" - assuming, that the course is still running and you need advice on how to proceed and come to a good result.

After reading the full question, my answer is a clear "no". I'm located in Germany, but I assume the following thoughts are applicable to the US too:

If you explain your situation to the professor right now, it will feel like you want to influence his objective grading attitude. I would never accept such an attempt and I would in fact be angry because just because you told me, I will be influenced. I won't rate you better, but I might even be stricter in cases where I'm unsure whether I should give a point more or less, just to avoid beeing unfair towards the other students.
If the professor would react on your situation, it might even be illegal, it would be definitely unethical. In the worst case, he could be fired. #Everyone has to be treated equally.
Most (all?) universities have defined rules on how to treat sickness, bad personal circumstances, etc. You should check your local regulations and get advice from either other faculty members, students organizations or the responsible university staff. In many cases, there are options to re-do an exam.
You should check the regulations mentioned before, but I would not take any measures before the results are out. After they are published, you could ask the professor on advice on how to proceed and explain your situation afterwards. Maybe there are some options like a second attempt or otherwise.

I have never taken graduate level courses, but having had similar problems as an undergraduate, it is very important you speak with a counsellor about any other personal issues which might be bothering you.  In addition if it turns out you fail, it will also be necessary to get counseling on that. I assure you there will be a lot of bad feelings which will come up when you fail a course, especially if you are used to success in the past.


Is it good syntax to thank the reviewer for every comment in peer review? I received a template from a senior student where every response to the reviewer's question begins with thanking the reviewer. For instance,

  Question 1: Please resize Figure 4.

    The authors thank reviewer #4 for the suggestion. We....

  Question 2: Why was this test performed?

    The authors thank reviewer #4 for the insightful question. We....

It seems a bit odd to thank the reviewer for each and every question. Then again, this seems to be a popular format for the journal.
I have already prepared a response file in this pattern, but just before uploading it I had second thoughts. Should I go in and remove the thanks from every question, or is this a common / expected pattern?

EDIT: This is meant to go to an IEEE journal for Remote Sensing.

I'm in the social and health sciences, so etiquette in your discipline may differ (though I doubt it).

I have never done this. Generally, I thank the editors and reviewers for their time and effort in the body of the response letter, but I stick to business in the individual comments. There may be a really exceptional comment by a reviewer that I may thank them for (suggesting a specific citation I didn't think of or identifying an oversight, where addressing it may improve the manuscript immensely). So, basically my individual responses look more like "As suggested by reviewer #1, we have added additional literature about topic x in the introduction...We have revised figure 2 so that it more clearly displays the findings."

Hope that helps!

I would prefer to use the surreptitious ingenuity of the authors in thanking the reviewers. This removes any uncertainty in the reader's mind about your acceptance of the comment nad lets you present the response objectively.

If you remove the thanks, and a thankful introduction, the comments would look disjointed and fail to have any impact and leave the reviewer in doubt as to whether the comment is closed. This is because in the response you might aargue your point, make changes to language and grammar and otherwise unwittingly run down the imort of what the reviewer implied in his review comment.

Also this interjection of thanfulness isolates different comment responses from priorr and post comments and responses and shows the reviewer that the response is to this specific comment andis not overlapping into the next serialised response as it deserves to be a complete standalone response in each point.


Can an international PhD Student in Australia make a living with an APA scholarship and 8 hours teaching work per week? My "problem":

I am from Austria and currently in the process of applying for a PhD position in Brisbane, Australia. My supervisors said that I might be eligible for an
APA (Australian Postgraduate Awards) stipend which is supposed to cover my living expenses in AUS. Receiving this scholarship would also mean that I wouldn't be paying any tuition fees.
The total stipend amount is 26,288 AU$ / year. And as far as I know, I would be allowed to work up to 8 hours a week to earn some extra money (I.e. as a teaching assitant).
I don't know how much the hourly rates for this type of job are, but if I speculate and say it's about 20AUS$/h, this would result in a total weekly budget of approximately 660AU$ (including wage and scholarship).

My question:

Can I make a living with this amount of money in an expensive city like Brisbane? Could I maybe even safe up some money to fly back to Europe once a year to visit my family and friends?
Any experiences or useful links of (international) PhD Students in Australia are appreciated (I.e. on insurance costs, etc.).

Note: I know that the Australian Government says that the average living expenses per year are AU$18,610, but they don't explicitly state how they calculate this sum. When I checked the costs for housing, food, insurance, etc., the sum exceeded this official number by far.

I'm a current PhD student at the University of Melbourne. I can just support myself and one other person on my $30,000 of scholarships. I also live with just my partner (no housemates), our rent is just under $400/week + bills. So if you are OK with a more student-like experience you are likely to be fine, and use TA work to save for flights you need to take back to Europe.

Your estimate is quite low for TA work: the minimum wage for casual cafe or fast-food workers in Australia is over $22/hr. I get $44/hr for TAing, though this may just be Melbourne Uni. Also scholarships are tax-free, meaning you may not have to pay any income tax (as it would be nearly impossible to earn over the $18200 tax-free threshold given visa restrictions).

it is very difficult to make it work, in most parts of AU. I'd be careful about attempting it without some savings, guaranteed uni work, or the  possibility of family assistance--which is how most people make it work. The APA is less than minimum wage, and most of Australia has crazy high rents--even for shared housing. Your budgeting is correct--the numbers just don't add up. I don't know where the poster lives who says it is cheaper to eat out than buy groceries--in the Sydney and Melbourne areas, a salad out is 30 dollars. Grocery food is fine--expensive by European standards, but you can live on noodles and beans.  it is the rents that are,  and some of the health care that can be,  expensive. Even with insurance, there are additional health costs for many doctor visits, tests, etc--not covered by insurance (either for Australian nationals or international visitors/students). Again, the APA award is less than AU minimum wage--which itself does not cover basic costs of living in much of Australia--so no, the award is not enough, unless someone lucks into bizarrely cheap housing, or has existing savings to supplement the award. Do not think you will automatically get work on campus at $44-62 dollar/hour rates. Jobs are few and far between on many campuses. If campus work is your supplementation plan, get a commitment from the Uni for that work before accepting.


Former PI lists a non-contributor as first author on a manuscript for which I did all the work. Next steps? I finished my master's degree several years ago, where I was responsible for developing/programming algorithms for a biochemistry lab. I have since successfully transitioned into industry and have been working ever since. I also have a very good relationship with my former PI.
Some time ago, my former PI contacted me and I did some work for him, pro-bono, and he was interested in publishing the results. I personally had no interest in the actual publication, but I did this work more so because it allowed me to explore an area of mathematics in which I had limited experience.
Lo and behold, I receive the manuscript for edits, and a student completely unrelated to this work was listed as the first author!
Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't care. Academia was only a stepping stone in my life and a publication doesn't benefit me in any way. However, something feels "wrong" about just listing someone who has not contributed to this work in any way as the first author. I would like to be listed as the first author. At the same time, I want to keep a good relationship with my former PI. What are my next steps? How do I go about this?
Edit: Based on the feedback so far, I think the next best step would be to follow up with the PI and determine what the student's contribution was. Perhaps the student did indeed use the results I obtained to actually write the manuscript, in which case I would have no problem letting the student take first authorship. Again, as of right now, I only see work that my former PI has done, so I want to clarify.
Edit 2: I think there is some confusion about how many authors there are in this paper. There is me, who wrote the algorithm and there is my PI, who wrote the paper based on my results. Would I deserve first authorship if this a multi-author publication? Absolutely not. But by default, since myself and my PI are the only persons who have worked on this, either one of us can take first author role.
I received an update from the PI. The student was placed on the paper because the student was "supposed to contribute" but they did not want to learn how to use git (which is how I initially decided to version any manuscripts I worked on). The PI has made a promise to make sure the student takes the lead in terms of writing the paper and learning how to use git.

Before you get upset, I think it would be important to learn more about the actual circumstances of the publication.  I say this because, based on your description of the situation in your post you haven't been acting like a first author.
You may indeed have done all of the initial work on which the manuscript was based, but based on what you have written, you don't seem to have been particularly involved in interpreting the results or writing them up (beyond the methods section).
The first author of a paper, in typical usage for the field, should be involved in every stage of the project and the production of the manuscript. From what you have written, it appears that you haven't been, and so you may not even be properly aware of what the other student may or may not have done for the project. Maybe your speculation is correct; maybe it is not. Ultimately, however, authorship order isn't really your call, because you have chosen not to lead work on the paper.
If you want to be first author on a paper, you need to involve yourself more deeply with the project, including the actual scientific interpretation of the results.
Now, if you are concerned that your former PI may be acting unethically, you can ask for a description of the work that the other student has done. Do this from a perspective of curiosity and surprise, rather than accusation.  Once their work has been described, if you disagree with your former PI's judgement, then voice your concerns. If your PI doesn't make a change after that, you can withdraw yourself from the paper --- you should not lend your name to something that you consider unethical.  But based on what you described, it's not really your paper, and in the end your choice is primarily about whether or not to be associated with it.

I think we have all been in this situation at some point in our academic careers and I think it's best to just let it go.  For example, let's say someone I know published a paper with two co-authors at the beginning of their career.  The third author contributed decisively and deserved co-authorship on the work whereas the second author is well-known and has been around a while but contributed nothing at all to the paper apart from occasional confused email messages.  For a while, the person was annoyed about this and felt that it was very unfair, and it is somewhat unfair, but in the end it was better for their career to just accept it and move on as there would be nothing achieved by arguing about it.


Can my UK PhD permit me to use the title "Dr.-Ing." in Germany? I'm moving to Germany in a couple of weeks and I'll be setting up as a freelancer. I'm just curious about my title though.

I got my PhD in the UK in 2015, it states "Doctor of Philosophy" on the certificate, as usual, but my research was in Computer Science, specifically experimental application of Computer Science techniques to Engineering problems (in fact, my work was actually funded by an automobile company based in Germany whom I visited quite regularly).

I'm no longer in academia, but last summer I was briefly at Hannover University, where somebody suggested that I would be eligible for the Dr.-Ing. title instead of the plain Dr. title.

Fact is, I would like the Dr.-Ing. given the technical nature of my freelance work, but I am not sure whether I am legally allowed to use it.

Can anybody advise me?

One important thing you need to know about the German Doktorgrad is (alongside other non-academic titles) that its use is restricted by federal law. Adding a Doktortitel to your name in public without being entitled to do so is a punishable offence. This means that you should not trust any answer that you get from the Internet on this topic. Make sure that you verify whatever answer you get with an official side. One way of doing so is pointed out in @Cachapa's useful answer from the point of view of someone who already went through this.
Having said that: First of all, a British Doctor of Philosophy is indeed considered equivalent to a German Doktorgrad. You can verify that using this database (unfortunately only available in German). This means that you're fully qualified for whatever position or task that requires a Dr.
However, while you're entitled to use your PhD in public as an academic title, it is not possible to convert your PhD into a German Doktorgrad, and doing so might be an offense according to German law. This is based on a statement issued by the Kultusministerkonferenz (the "Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany"). These are the crucial points:

Akademische Grade sind in Deutschland rechtlich geschützt.
Der ausländische Grad muss ordnungsgemäß verliehen sein.
Die Umwandlung eines ausländischen Grades in einen deutschen Grad ist nicht möglich (…).

My translation:

Academic titles are protected by the law in Germany.
A foreign title has to have been granted lawfully.
It is not possible to convert a foreign title into a German title.

This statement is very explicit in my opinion, and it means that you cannot just add Dr.-Ing. to your name if you haven't been granted the title by a German university. It also means that no German university can grant you a Dr.-Ing. simply because you have a foreign equivalent title.
Yet, you can use your PhD in public, because it's acknowledged as an academic title. Plus, the Kultusministerkonferenz has decided that EU members can also choose to use Dr. instead of the designation used in their country of origin, this is regulated in (2) in the "Vereinbarung
über begünstigende Regelungen der 'Grundsätze für die Regelung der Führung ausländischer Hochschulgrade'" (thanks to @Pont for pointing that out), but this does not include the "-Ing." part. To quote:

Hochschulgrade aus Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (EU) oder des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraumes (EWR) […] können in der Originalform ohne Herkunftsbezeichnung geführt werden.

This means that academic titles from the EU, the EEA may be used as part of the name in their original form without stating their origin.

Inhaber von in einem wissenschaftlichen Promotionsverfahren erworbenen Doktorgraden, die in den in Ziff. 1 bezeichneten Staaten oder Institutionen erworben wurden, können anstelle der im Herkunftsland zugelassenen oder nachweislich allgemein üblichen Abkürzung […] wahlweise die Abkürzung „Dr.“ ohne fachlichen Zusatz und ohne Herkunftsbezeichnung führen. […] Führung beider Abkürzungen ist nicht zulässig.

This means that a holder of a doctorate from one of the countries described in (1) may decide to use the abbreviation Dr. instead of the abbreviation that is usually used in their country of origin, but without the addition of an abbreviation indicating the title-granting discipline – that's the part referring to the -Ing. suffix. Also, it's not possible to combine both abbreviations, i.e. "Dr. Schmuddi, PhD" is not allowed.
Edit (March 2021)
The answer above reflects the state of affairs from 2017, a time at which the UK had already voted in favor of Brexit but was still a EU member. Now that the UK is not a member state anymore, paragraphs (1) and (2) don't apply to UK PhD holders. Consequently, the "Vereinbarung" was revised in 2019 by adding the UK to the list of exceptions in paragraph (4) (alongside Australia, Israel, Japan, Canada, and the US):

Inhaber von folgenden Doktorgraden [...] Vereinigtes Königreich: „Doctor of ...“ mit jeweils unterschiedlicher Abkürzung [...] können anstelle der im Herkunftsland zugelassenen oder nachweislich allgemein üblichen Abkürzungen die Abkürzung „Dr.“ jeweils ohne fachlichen Zusatz und Herkunftsbezeichnung führen.

According to this revision, any scholar from the UK who holds a PhD (which is an instance of a „Doctor of ...“ degree) may still use Dr. in their name, but as before, you may not add the degree-granting discipline. So, at least as far as the regulations concerning using an UK PhD in Germany is concerned, Brexit didn't cause any substantial change after all.

If you belong to a recognised Engineering Institution you may be entitled to apply to FEANI for the prenominals EUR ING in addidion to Dr.


Good idea to warn students they were suspected of cheating? I am a math professor. Several of our midterm questions were posted to Chegg. We found some students who clearly used them and gave them zeroes for the exam. We also had two students where I kept going back and forth. Most of their work was fine but, in each case, there was one answer which was surprisingly close to Chegg but not so close that I thought it couldn't be a coincidence. I kept sitting on the edge and finally decided to let it go.
I've been thinking, after all grades are in, of writing these students and saying "If you were cheating, you came very close to getting caught. You should be scared about how close you came and make sure you don't do this again; you clearly know enough to pass without it. If you weren't, than I am very sorry to have suspected you." Good idea or terrible idea?

No, you should not single them out. If you have evidence of cheating, then charge it. If you have suspicions then you should swallow and ignore them so as not to prejudice the students in the future.
If you want to announce to the entire class that there were a few other cases that were suspect, not naming names and not singling out any individual, that would be fine and the message would be delivered.
Some people would take such a singling out very badly. Psychologically. Especially if they didn't cheat.

Actually, I wonder why this is a problem at all.
Especially math is about understanding and solving a problem. And not about how well you can find external information.
If exam questions are testing understanding and solving, it won't help your students when they are looking up the answers somewhere else. Therefore it doesn't matter if they look up answers. So I think you are fixing the wrong thing here.
Edit:
For me it was not clear the questions were posted during the exam. That makes a bit of a difference. When remembering my math exams: besides the answer I had to give an explanation why the answer was correct. Without explanation you got only a fraction of the points. Depending on the teacher, even with a correct answer.
When cheating was suspected you had to clarify your explanation. Which you are not able to if you cheated.


Why would a university restrict publication of work due to plagiarism fears if TurnItIn was used? I used to host some code I'd written for university assignments publicly on my GitHub account (after the deadlines had passed, of course). Before long, I received an email from the dep't asking me to take it down due to fears of plagiarism (if students were given the same or similar assignments in the years subsequent).

I did so, but recently I've been thinking - my university uses Turnitin for plagiarism detection, which as I understand it means that my code is already in the Turnitin database as shown in the below excerpt from this FAQ:

  Misconception 7: Every student paper submitted becomes part of the Turnitin database--forever.

  Reality: Turnitin has many options--including the ability to offer students an "opt out" of the database and the option of having an institutional database of student papers.  Student papers may be removed only by request of the instructor of the class.

I don't recall opting out of anything, so if my code is in the Turnitin database surely undetected plagiarism wouldn't be an issue? Of course, the morality of providing a desperate student with both the temptation and means to plagiarise is another issue entirely.

Those plagiarism checkers can only detect certain kinds of plagiarism. They will detect for example if text parts are the same. They won't detect missing references or plagiarized ideas.

So if you host your assignment there then others can be "inspired" by that, and if they rewrite everything in their own words and change the code in certain ways but don't cite your GitHub project then it would be a plagiat. But Turnitin might not recognize it as such. Especially since I guess you would need to set the detection level quite low, because for such assignments there will always be a certain overlap in the results if everyone solves the same problem.

I am a three-time loser on applying for a job at TurnItIn, so I don't know if they are smart enough to mark computer source code as needing special treatment. A stupid plagiarism checker would be defeated by global search and replace on variable names.


I grade exams together with a colleague but disagree with their grading. What should I do? Recently, I have graded exams (50 pcs.) together with a colleague from another department. I felt like my colleague was awarding too many points for wrong/incomplete answers. For example, awarding points for just writing information of the question (value and units of parameters) on the answer sheet; or awarding points for copying one of the formulas on the formula sheet to the answer sheet while not specifically described in the grading template

During the grading of the exams I have discussed this with my colleague and decided to mostly follow his 'point awarding system' so that it does not create an unfair grading between sub-groups of the total population. Afterwards, I have discussed this again, but I feel like my colleague is not keen to change his grading style.

What are the next steps that I could take? Is it necessary that the whole university should have the same grading style?

ps: The course is given by their department and I have helped since this year because it overlaps with my expertise. It has a pass rate of ~50%.

ps2: It's not that his point awarding system is so loose that students with a 3/10 will suddenly be awarded a 6/10 but it will certainly change the outcome of passing the course for some students.

Have each person grade different questions, not different students.

Consistency in grading is important, and it is unfair to the students if their grades depend substantially on the allocation of their work to a grader.  For this reason, if you must split grading duties with another colleague for a particular assessment item, it is best to split the grading duties for the questions rather than splitting the grading of the students.  So, for example, one person grades Q1-3 on all papers and the other person grades Q4-6 on all papers.  That way each student is graded by the same person for the same question.  (Logistically, each of you should grade your questions on half the papers, then swap.)

It sounds like this ship has already sailed, and you have made the rookie mistake of splitting grading for the students, with different people marking different students.  It also sounds like you have tried to discuss this with your colleague, but you have exhausted attempts to change his grading.  In that case, even if your own grading style is superior to your colleague, adapting to his grading level for this assessment is probably a reasonable second-best option, simply to maintain consistency of the level of grades awarded.  In future, try to avoid the problem all together by splitting grading over questions instead of over students.

An excellent discussion and am enjoying reading the comments. As an undergraduate, I confronted bias, extreme in two cases, in grading during my first 2 years. Only through perseverance and mentoring from two professors was I able to overcome it. Thus, the governing principle in my own teaching career was to let students succeed or fail on their own merits.

Like @einpokum, I abhorred the bell curve believing it to be both antiquated and unfair. One gorilla in the room is the fact that some students on every campus, primarily through various organizations, especially Greek letter ones, have access to exams and papers than non-connected students do. As a graduate student I lost a number of papers graded by professors who left them outside departmental offices. And, as a professor, a couple of papers submitted to me I determined had been plagiarized. Protecting the fairness of student evaluation is an institutional responsibility.

In my own experience, after my 1st year of teaching at the college level, I instituted what I called developmental grading, believing that teachers are responsible for providing a framework in which all students have an opportunity for success. This is a concept I learned when in nursery school from two very intelligent teachers, and it's remained in my consciousness every since. Their application was solely environmental. The approach I used was also environmental, but focused on student evaluation, and was three-phased:

Students took an exam, which was graded by me and later by others as the numbers of students in my general courses increased, from less than 20 when I began, to over 100.
Once grades were known, students could apply to take the exam again for half of the points for each question that they "missed" in the initial exam. These would be added to their earlier grade.
If still not satisfied, they could take an oral exam before the entire class who would then evaluate their performance.

Although there were several who opted for #2, none applied for option 3. I was hoping for at least one to determine how the students would respond.

Only after the 2nd phase was completed did the class go through the exam together to share their thoughts about each question and the expected answers. Later, this was modified for students to go through the exam with student assistants or other professors depending on the course.

A second principle in my evaluation, which students ultimately learned, was that the three previous exams had less impact on their final grade than how they did on a comprehensive final; and, that these exams and the follow-up discussion were designed to help them perform better on the Final. In fact, a student could do poorly on all other exams (barring poor attendance or otherwise failing minimum parameters), get an A on the final and achieve an A for a grade. For some students, no doubt, it appeared as a gift, but they earned a better grade. Why? I believed that finals were designed not to achieve a percentage of a grade in relation to all other criteria, but to test what they comprehensively learned overall about the subject of the course. Grading final exams was one of my base pleasures, as well as the gourmet coffee I imbibed to get me through them. :)

I might add that exams were not the only factors entering into a final assessment, but book reviews, reports about speakers or activities on campus germane to the class or quizzes which they triggered by not asking questions when prompted by my question at the end of each class--are there any questions? Like many of you, I suspect, teaching involves learning complex concepts and reducing them to an 8th grade level so that most first to second year students can comprehend what it is we are talking about.