Is obtaining a professorship contingent upon the ability to secure federal grants? I am a DACA student in the US in my last year of my PhD program, and that means that I will be applying for postdoc and professor positions. However, DACA status means that I am ineligible to apply for federal research grants and I am limited to only applying for private grants that have no restrictions on legal status.

There's also a lot of uncertainty surrounding the fate of DACA as the Trump administration has previously stressed that they would work to rescind the program (which may result in deportation of people like me).

My advisers said that applying for lecturer positions should not pose a problem, but I'm concerned about my chances to apply for professor positions when I am not able to secure any federal grants issued by the government, in addition to the fact that my stay in the US is not 100% guaranteed in the long run. I love teaching but would also like to continue doing research as well, in a university setting...

Any insights on the matter, especially by those that have worked in hiring committees, would be much appreciated!

Setting aside all of the questions around DACA, let's focus on the question of how necessary federal grants are to obtaining (and keeping) a position as a professor.

Professorships at research-intensive universities are indeed generally strongly dependent on the perceived ability to bring in funding.  Among other things, without funding it is difficult to support graduate students. Without graduate students, one's research typically progresses much more slowly (excepting perhaps in certain theoretical areas).  Moreover, at some universities successful graduation of Ph.D. students is part of making tenure.  You may be able to do this with private, state, or international funds, of course, in which case you would want to try to demonstrate why this plan is feasible to a hiring committee.

Professorships at teaching-focused universities, on the other hand, are typically much less tightly linked to the ability to get federal funding. While you may face other obstacles there, your primary job would in any case be teaching rather than research, and small amounts of funding from non-federal sources may be much more plausible as an approach.

As the OP is interested in applying for professorship, I would assume (s)he has many papers with many citations.

If so, perhaps it is better to get rid of this DACA status first. As I understand, all one needs to do is to leave the US, then re-enter legally with a different status.

This sounds crazy for normal people, but it is not difficult for postdoc positions (which of course, much less competitive than professorship). So, instead of apply professorship directly, how about doing a postdoc 3 - 6 month in EU first?

You can also self-petition your green card while on J-1 visa, either EB1 or EB2-NIW. According to this data, 60 citations is the median to obtain EB2-NIW.

I had my green card after 2 years living in the US. I applied for EB1, my citations were around 150 at that time.

Note that, since J-1 is not dual intention, it is better to change to O-1 before applying for green card to avoid the risk if the application fails.


What are assistant professors called in North America? We've had discussions on this site about the German tradition of Prof. Dr., but I'm unclear on how it maps over to the North American academy.

My question, therefore, is whether a North American assistant professor (PhD holding, tenure-stream) would be considered a professor, a doctor, a professor doctor, or some other form when registering for an event there.

In North America, one would only mention an academic's rank (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, etc) in formal contexts where it is important to describe their exact job title (in a CV, business card, news article, etc).

Otherwise, the word "professor" is used generically to refer to any tenure-stream university faculty members, and in some cases also non-tenure-stream.  For example, "Susan Jones is a biology professor at Harvard."  That would still be correct if her rank is assistant professor.  Or: "The conference was attended by 300 professors from across the country."  They need not all have been full professors.

It is also the word used to address any of these people.  ("Professor Jones, I thought your paper was very interesting.")

"Doctor" is also used as a term of address, assuming the faculty member in question holds a doctoral degree.  ("Doctor Jones, please tell me more about your experiment.")  Whether "Professor" or "Doctor" is to be preferred is a matter of local custom which varies from one institution to the next.  But "Doctor" is not used to refer to the job itself.  You would not say "Susan Jones is a biology doctor at Harvard."

In North America, titles are never stacked.  One does not say "Professor Doctor Jones".

In North America, all professors at all levels seem to just use the salutation "doctor", and nothing more. Does this answer your question?


Is supporting Sci-Hub illegal/unacademic? In the classroom, one of the students asked me about Sci-Hub. I answered that I like the idea as I am against the tyranny of publishers. As a fun fact, I added that I have even donated to Sci-Hub.

Then, I received a notice from our department head referring the case to the disciplinary committee since Sci-Hub is illegal and any direct and indirect support of an illegal activity is against the university policy.

Is supporting Sci-Hub illegal / unacademic?

In my view it is foolish to describe Sci-Hub itself as illegal. Acts can be illegal, but not "things" or groups of people. Only activities. While it is true that they may engage in illegal activities, that is not the same thing.

However, if what they do is copyright infringement (very possibly) then you can't participate in that.

However, if you want to upload things for which you hold copyright to Sci-Hub or a similar site then you aren't engaging in any illegal activity, nor is any downloader, provided that you grant an appropriate license.

Countries and other jurisdictions make laws. People (and organizations) can break those laws, but the people themselves, and the organizations do not themselves become illegal.

I think your university is right to open a disciplinary hearing only if you advocate breaking laws to students.

I agree with you that publishers have put a lock on science and culture that is very unfortunate. Especially when copyright no longer seems to expire after a reasonable period, and fair use is losing ground. Publishers are transferring what should be a common good into a private profit making enterprise. They are, IMO, stealing from the public. If you can afford not to give them copyright on things then I encourage it, but the whole system has made it hard for academics to build a reputation otherwise. Long term this tends to make us dumber, not smarter. As they say: Sad.

I'll add an historical note. There was once a valid reason for publishers to want to hold copyright on articles they published. There was a lot of friction (read cost) between an author and a potential reader. As such, since the publisher bore a lot of the cost (not the creation cost, of course), they needed assurance that they could recoup what they spent in making scientific articles available - especially since the material itself had value, but the number of potential readers was small (relatively speaking).

But that world is now long past. Publishing is nearly frictionless now. Publishers can still provide a useful review (done by volunteers) and editing (done by paid professionals) function, but the distribution cost is near zero and borne partly by users in any case (internet fees). Most of the real cost of the creation of publishable material today is borne by the author, by universities and scientific organizations, and by government. Publishers in the old model are an anachronism if not an oxymoron.

If you think Sci-Hub is a knight in shining armor fighting against the tyranny of publishers, your view of Sci-Hub is incorrect. Sci-Hub is generally illegal, does illegal things, and is a scourge of law-abiding academics & institutions everywhere.
I'm going to skip all the "publishers are/are not tyrants" arguments because I assume you are familiar with them and have already decided publishers are tyrants, and trying to change your mind is futile. However Sci-Hub does illegal things in other ways: it embodies the dark side of the online world by phishing, hacking passwords, stealing as much information as possible, etc. Check this article out.

Let me be clear: Sci-Hub is not just stealing PDFs. They’re phishing, they’re spamming, they’re hacking, they’re password-cracking, and basically doing anything to find personal credentials to get into academic institutions. While illegal access to published content is the most obvious target, this is just the tip of an iceberg concealing underlying efforts to steal multiple streams of personal and research data from the world’s academic institutions.
...
We know that, at one UK University, Sci-Hub managed to get six passwords through a 48-hour dictionary attack on their system. Then, over a weekend (when spikes in usage are less likely to come to the attention of publishers or library technical departments) they accessed 350 publisher websites and made 45,092 PDF requests. In another attack, the hackers not only broke into their database; they changed the names and passwords of profiles. Another institution told us an intruder changed the cell phone numbers linked to the user accounts and also planted malware, meaning that all their computers needed to be completely wiped. In addition, we have evidence that Sci-Hub is bombarding university IT systems, often for days on end, without the knowledge of compromised users.

If you distrust both publishers and IT experts, try talking to your institution's librarians. It might surprise you that they dislike Sci-Hub too. The article cites several reasons, such as how Sci-Hub stifles innovation in publishing, is parasitic on libraries, puts the library at legal risk, and has no regard for copyright law. Some quotes:

It can be argued that, far from being disruptive or publishing’s “Napster moment”, by providing access to such material Sci-Hub is stifling the impetus needed to innovate in publishing.
...
Again, it is ironic that access to the site is provided by the very mechanism it means to subvert. This argument becomes even more extreme when it is taken to its logical conclusion (which all three of us have heard) that we should cancel library subscriptions and rely on Sci-Hub: a major reason Sci-Hub exists is because of the subscriptions we pay for. It is unashamedly illegal and it is parasitic on library subscriptions.
...
In terms of library access and users donating subscriptions, such action puts access to all our users at risk ... Moreover, university libraries can become liable for breach of their contractual terms if services are misused, or credentials passed on by library users. Typically, contractual terms specify that “Authorised Users must not provide access and/or allow use of the Licensed Material by anyone other than Authorised Users” (or words to that effect). Thus, if a subscribing institution knowingly lets an Authorised User do this, or turns a blind eye to the problem if it is drawn to their attention, then the subscriber is in breach of its contract with the publisher and will be cut off.
...
Our final objection to Sci-Hub is its utter contempt for copyright law – and this is an important point. Ownership of copyright in a work gives the owner the exclusive right to certain “restricted acts” in respect of that work, and a copyright owner may authorise others to do those acts by licence. Elbakyan is scathing in her blog posts “about so-called copyright law” that was “created to make to taboo free distribution of information”. The fact is Sci-Hub is engaged in large-scale, blatant, and very public copyright infringement, and from an ethical standpoint librarians should support publishers’ efforts to get its services closed down, but not without arguing effectively and advocating for the alternatives at the same time.

This is the website you're supporting.
In the end it's up to you to decide what values you believe in, but if you believe that supporting Sci-Hub is academic, I'll venture that you're in the minority among people who have a clear picture of what Sci-Hub actually does.


What to do when majority of the students do not bother to do peer grading assignment? I'm trying a new type of essay in the community college class that I teach. Once a week the students write a 700 word analysis of a topic I choose. It's worth a regular essay (a measly 10 points) but I've been trying a new grading method.

Turn in the paper (1 points)

Peer analysis x 3 (3 points each)

In the peer analysis, students dissect three of their classmate's essays and give them between 0 and 3 points. On average, I find that students give a higher grade than I would.

The main issue I'm facing is that 19 of my 30 students aren't even bothering to do the peer review. By default, they are giving their peers F's on their assignments. This is vastly dropping my class's average score, and as a relatively new teacher, I'm somewhat concerned that I'll be penalized for their inability to do their work. In my opinion, bumping up everyone's grades would be immoral.

You seem to have the grading scheme mis-targeted.

When you make peer review part of your grading scheme you grade the review not the paper reviewed. Failure to do the review should be reflected in the reviewer's grade not in the author's grade.

The criteria I use for grading reviews are along the lines of

Does the review correctly identify strengths and weakness of the submitted material?
Does it communicate problems clearly and helpfully to the author?
Are the criticisms couched in constructive language? (I know, this is not actually necessary or honored in the real world, but I want my classroom to be a comfortable learning environment so I insist.)
Does the review identify what parts of the paper are the source of particular complaints. ("Section 3.2 is unclear because..." as opposed to "Some parts of the paper are unclear").

Note that this means I have to read and review the paper myself and then read and grade the reviews. It's painfully time-consuming.

The positive aspects of this kind of assignment is that it engages the students at the "evaluation" tier of Bloom's taxonomy, and exposes them to a range of different quality of work so they get a chance to understand for themselves that some writing is just plain better than other samples.

The negative aspects include the amount of time used, the somewhat subjective nature of the grading criteria, and a tendency for students to tell each other how very well they are all doing (it requires a certain expertise to do a good—and especially a critical—job of evaluating the work of others; if your students aren't at that level yet they won't set high standards for their peers).

Addendum

Over the weekend I saw a talk on a system called calibrated peer review, which provides a framework for using peer review as part of the grading scheme for student essays. I have no personal experience with the system.

The whole system is mediated over the internet. Assignments proceed in several phases.

Student receive the prompt, do any necessary research, then write and submit their response.
Students then receive a rubric for assessing responses to the same assignment and apply it to three sample responses provided by the instructor (designed to mimic poor, adequate and good student responses).

Success in this stage is defined by having a rating close to that assigned by the instructor. They are allowed a second chance on any where they deviate excessively.

The weight of a students review in the third stage is determined by their performance in this stage (students whose use of the rubric does not match the instructor's will have less impact then student whose application of the rubric matches the instructor's).
Students then read and rate three anonymous responses from their peers (and possibly from the instructor who can provide a 'student' response as well as the three used for calibration). These responses are factored into the author's grade on the assignment using the weights established in stage 2.

Finally, students read and rate their own response. Success here defined by matching the consensus.

Disputes and special cases are resolved by the instructor.

Clearly there is a lot going on there. The anonymity, the use of the calibration stage, and the weighting of student evaluations by their success in rating the calibration responses all work to prevent the worst failure modes of just asking students to grade each other's work directly. Even so, you need that rule that the instructor can overrule the system in exceptional case.

When all is said and done a student's grade on the assignment can be based more on their rating (of samples, of their peers's responses, and of their own submission) than on their own writing. The speaker showed a grading scheme he used in which the essay itself was only worth 20% of the assignment grade with the rest coming from various parts of the review sequence.

This is a lengthy process and is used more on short writing assignment than on substantial papers. It also requires considerable prep, as the instructor must provide the prompt, the rubric, three calibration responses and possibly a fake 'student' response.

Just because I think some of the answers here are misinterpreting the question here is my view.

You are saying that each student rates the other students papers and writes a brief opinion regarding it, and that each rating gives the rater 3 points, right? That is a great exercise and it definitely encourages support between students!

However, you are saying that 18 of the students won't do the peer review portion of the exercise, right? Well, if that is the case and they do not have any legitimate reason to ignore the assignment (protesting the subject you gave them as not reasonable, thinking you are outsourcing grading, etc) then you should just not give them the points as a reviewer. They failed to do it. However, if they do have a legitimate reason you should still take the points away. If they have an issue then they should speak to their advisor or someone with the department. Ultimately, the professor has the final say on what happens in a class, not the students, and while yes... there are things you shouldn't do having student peer review English papers to encourage participation is not at all "wrong" or "unfair" to the students.

I would also suggest asking the students why they didn't do it and consider not doing the assignment in the future. You could also bump the essay up to 3X its current length and make it worth 10 points since people don't want to do it. I'm sure the students will not want the alternative and have no problem doing the assignment from then on. Then, for those who did the assignment like you asked you could somehow figure out a way to not come down so hard on them by giving them a score boost or something or by flat out saying "the one's who did the assignment only have to do a regular sized essay".

There are plenty of things you could do to fix this. In fact, you could even just give extra credit assignments that are reasonably difficult. Then, those who just felt uncomfortable reviewing will end up still getting a good grade because you will see that they are willing to do the work and just didn't feel comfortable with the assignment. Of course, there is only likely to be 1 or 2 people like that in the class. Most of the people will probably just blow off the extra credit and end up with a not-so-good grade in their homework.

Finally: don't worry about it too much

There will be students who are just lazy or don't want to do assignments. At some point, it will become clear that they just won't change no matter what you do. At that point, they've made their bed and they'll have to lie in it. I'm sure you gave your students a grading metric of some kind at the beginning of the class. If they end up with a bad grade or fail, that is ultimately their fault.


Is it ok to upload joke papers to arXiv? I have recently stumbled upon this paper on arXiv:
 Stopping GAN Violence: Generative Unadversarial Networks  (mirror), which is a parody/joke paper.

Is it ok to upload joke papers to arXiv?

There is a long tradition of posting joke papers to arXiv on or around April Fool's Day, especially in astro-ph - see the list below. The fact that all these papers were approved for arXiv offers some evidence (though not proof) that joke papers are okay.

It's probably best to limit joke papers to around April 1, though, when people know to be on the lookout for this stuff - or at least provide some indicator which is very clear to experts in the field that the paper is a joke, such as listing it as being submitted to SIGBOVIK or the Annals of Improbable Research.

A history of arXiv joke papers

(mirrored on my website)

Superiority of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) over Steward Observatory (SO) at the University of Arizona (2002)
On the Utter Irrelevance of LPL Graduate Students: An Unbiased Survey by Steward Observatory Graduate Students (2002)
Cosmic Conspiracies (2006)
Natural Dark Energy (2007)
Down-sizing Forever (2008)
Time variation of a fundamental dimensionless constant (2009)
Galaxy Zoo: an unusual new class of galaxy cluster (2009)
Orthographic Correlations in Astrophysics (2010)
Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone (2010)
Non-standard morphological relic patterns in the cosmic microwave background (2011)
On the influence of the Illuminati in astronomical adaptive optics (2012)
Gods as Topological Invariants (2012)
The Proof of Innocence (2012)
On the Ratio of Circumference to Diameter for the Largest Observable Circles: An Empirical Approach (2012)
Non-detection of the Tooth Fairy at Optical Wavelengths (2012)
Pareidolic Dark Matter (PaDaM) (2013)
A search for direct heffalon production using the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (2013)
Unidentified Moving Objects in Next Generation Time Domain Surveys (2013)
Conspiratorial cosmology - the case against the Universe (2013)
"Winter is coming" (2013)
The CMB flexes its BICEPs while walking the Planck (2014)
Bayesian Prediction for The Winds of Winter (2014)
A Farewell to Falsifiability (2015)
Beyond the New Horizon: The Future of Pluto (2015)
Astrology in the Era of Exoplanets (2016)
An unexpected new explanation of seasonality in suicide attempts: Grey's Anatomy broadcasting (2016)
Pi in the sky (2016)
SET-E: The Search for Extraterrestrial Environmentalism (2016)
Stopping GAN Violence: Generative Unadversarial Networks (2017) (the example from the question, included for completeness)
A Neural Networks Approach to Predicting How Things Might Have Turned Out Had I Mustered the Nerve to Ask Barry Cottonfield to the Junior Prom Back in 1997 (2017)
On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines (2017)
Detecting the Ultimate Power in the Universe with LSST (2017)
Sitnikov in Westeros: How Celestial Mechanics finally explains why winter is coming in Game of Thrones (2018)
Independent Discovery of a Sub-Earth in the Habitable Zone Around a Very Close Solar-Mass Star (2018)
Colonel Mustard in the Aviary with the Candlestick: a limit cycle attractor transitions to a stable focus via supercritical Andronov-Hopf bifurcation (2018)
The Long Night: Modeling the Climate of Westeros (2019)
Worlds in Migration (2019)
Forecasting Future Murders of Mr. Boddy by Numerical Weather Prediction (2019)
A new kind of radio transient: ERBs (2019)
Novel approach to Room Temperature Superconductivity problem (2020)
Quantum Godwin's Law (2020)
An Artificially-intelligent Means to Escape Discreetly from the Departmental Holiday Party; guide for the socially awkward (2020)
The search for life and a new logic (2020)
Making It Rain: How Giving Me Telescope Time Can Reduce Drought (2020)
Searching for Space Vampires with TEvSS (2020)
A PDF PSA, or Never gonna set_xscale again -- guilty feats with logarithms (2020)
Defining the Really Habitable Zone (2020)

Note: since this has become what I think is the most comprehensive list of arXiv joke papers I know of, I've made it community wiki so anyone can add to the list. Any additions should be clearly joke papers and, in keeping with the topic of the question, must be posted on arXiv.

Also, realize that people have done this to real journals.  Consider the Sokol hoax. Or the famous math paper about big game hunting mocking. Or the more subtle Physical Review Letter co-author F. D. C. Willard
I would avoid doing it too much.  And if it gets done too much it will damage the resource.  That said, a little bit is kind of amusing.  Especially if skillfully done.  But some pepper is good...too much is bad.


Does a research group actually review every applicant's documents in case of overwhelming number of applications? It's like the response to my PhD application usually includes something like "The number of the applications we've received is so high that we can't accommodate all of the qualified applicants." It's like outnumbering applicants is the general reason of rejection.

Besides that, they seldom address other reasons. Some responses of this kind were due to my enquiry after application, rather than on their own initiative. Some of them didn't bother to respond even after my enquiry.

So I wonder whether a research group or school actually reviews every applicant's documents if they receive an overwhelming number of applications compared to the vacancy number. Maybe they have a way to pick some among the large number of applications — like using the filter function of a computer to pick documents containing some kind of keywords, which may not be completely faithful — to actually review to consider who to admit and that's why they don't bother to reply to all the applicants they don't admit.

For example, recently I found the reason I was not admitted for an application to a fundamental physics research group in Europe four months ago is eventually the funding is only available for a research project which is not my research interest; thus probably they even didn't review my application as they, saying they received an extraordinary number of applications, only picked those whose research interests involve that research project to review.

When I get applications to review, I usually do a pre-pass on every application. I look for GPA, test scores, and compliance with requested application materials (i.e. did they even have anyone write them letters of recommendation?). We usually have explicitly stated bottom line cutoffs for GPA and test scores. Those falling below these marks are automatically set to the side.

I next try to scan the research statements / statements of purpose. This eliminates a large amount of the candidates usually.

I then cut the remaining applications into about half. I select who I want to accept from this half stack and order them roughly from strongest to weakest. I then do a spot check to see if anyone in the other half stack is clearly superior to the weaker candidates in the already selected stack. If so, I do an insertion of the new candidate and the weakest person is dropped from the list.

In the end, yes, I've looked at everyone's application, and no, I have not given heartfelt and deep thought to each applicant.

We then send out an accept/reject form email to every applicant. I very rarely even reply at length to students who fight their rejection.

If you saw how crammed the average professors calendar and how full their email inbox is... I would guess most groups simply don't have that kind of time.


What are the pros and cons of dealing with a very large dataset in qualitative research? What are the pros and cons of dealing with a very large amount of qualitative data as a sole researcher?

Obviously, required time and resources come to mind, but what else?

There are no pros or cons just as there are no pros or cons to having $1,000,000 versus $1,000 to work with.  You are less constrained.  That is just a fact. The range of things you can do goes way up.  If you don't like things being larger, you can voluntarily choose for them to be smaller by sampling.  If you have a more specific question regarding methods, you should ask it on Cross Validated.

If the proper big data processing is done, you have more data to use. The con is that 'big data' is still a relatively new thing, and the resources may not be available for you to use easily.


How do I go about getting into the engineering field with only a design degree from almost a decade ago? Due to health problems, I wasn't able to study well enough during my teenage years + 20s and I did not study or pursue something that truly interests me; instead I just graduated with a degree because it was easier for me at that time. My passion has always been in science - especially Robotics/Engineering or Physics. It has been bothering me for years and I know I can't get this thought out of my head unless I give it a try. I've been saving up money to study again and now I have the chance to do it, but I don't know how or where to start, not to mention I don't even know if it's "wise" to do it in my 30s.

My thinking is to ultimately get into a graduate program at a decent school; but before I do that, I'll need to have a foundation in math and science, and possibly a second degree in engineering or some relevant field. I tried so hard to find a school in the US that offers second degree in engineering but still didn't have luck, except for the ones that are less reputable in this field, and I'm not sure if it's going to be a problem when I try to apply for a more reputable grad program. So I assume it would probably take me 5-6 years. And by the time I graduate, I will be in my late 30s. I'm not worried about how much time I'm going to spend but I need to know if it's a field that welcomes older people to seek entry level employment after they graduate. Is there anything wrong with my "plan"? If so, what would be a better approach for me to do this? Any recommendations on schools/programs and how to go about it is highly appreciated! Thanks a lot!

You have a Bachelor's already, which already makes you nominally qualified for graduate school! What comes next is figuring out how to make an entrance into the field when you don't have a background in it. The Bachelor's system currently in existence generally requires a basic education requirement, so I wouldn't suggest going for a B.S. in physics or engineering. I would instead suggest one of two things, combined with a healthy regime of self-teaching:

Simply take courses at a local institution
Get an associate's in physics or engineering

Would this make you a non-standard applicant, having your most recent degree be an associate's, or a bevy of post-bac coursework not for a degree? Well, yes, but you're still qualified. You're really quite young within the camp of non-traditional, older students. If you can back up a shorter (cheaper!), more focused set of courses with some experience doing applicable work (volunteer at a lab, try to land a position as a tech at a nearby school), that makes you just another applicant, albeit one with very different life experiences.

There is a guy in my research group who has a wife and kids who transitioned into engineering when he was 30, and he swept right into an M.S. and then a Ph.D. program without getting a transitionary degree after eight years of no classes. It's definitely possible for top programs, as we're at a Top 15, but I would advise trying to get some experience and insight on the field at local institutions.

My thinking is to ultimately get into a graduate program at a decent
  school; but before I do that, I'll need to have a foundation in math
  and science, and possibly a second degree in engineering or some
  relevant field.

You are blowing the requirements a bit out of proportion.  If you want to be a bonafide engineer, what you really need is a B.E.: an engineering diploma accredited by ABET or another respected accreditation agency.  A B.E. generally takes about a year or a year and a half, not counting the prerequisite material.  Generally speaking, the pre-reqs aren't that bad, if you are a naturally mathematically inclined person and can work hard: you'll need about 2 terms of multivariable calculus, 2 terms or so of college level physics, maybe a term of chemistry, and probably a computer science class.  You can complete all of this and the B.E. in 2.5 years or less if you work hard - I know a number of people who have done it.

Let's say you're dead set on graduate school, but you want to get there as quickly as possible.  You realize that once you're in grad school you'll be there a while, but you don't want to wait a long time to get there.  I recommend the following:

Apply to the B.E. program at an accredited college.  For expediency, you won't want a liberal arts college.  Maybe a decent state college with a fair sticker price and a staff willing to work with you to get you in and out as quickly as possible.  You are not applying to do an A.B. or a B.S., just the B.E.
Do you want a Ph.D. or a Master's?  There are many 5-year B.E.-Master's programs out there, such as this one, this, this other one, and this, and also this, among many others.  If you want a Ph.D., then do the B.E. and then apply for a Ph.D. program somewhere.  I'd bet they'd appreciate that you are more adult, and experienced.

One last thing.  When you think about what you want to do in life, it's important to think about what you want to do, as opposed to what you want to be.  Do you want to be an engineer, or do engineering?

I am a mathematics major, and I think my future occupation(s) will be what most people would call "engineering."  In my case, an undergraduate education in mathematics is, I think, more useful for the "engineering" which interests me than an orthodox engineering diploma would be.  The trodden path is not always the best one, and especially when forced into unconventional positions as you are, thinking outside the box is a good idea.

I'd definitely encourage you to reflect on whether or not spending 1.5-2.5 years on a B.E. and another 1-3 on a Master's or 3-6 on a Ph.D. is necessarily the path to a job and life where you will be able to do the sort of engineering you want to do.  You can always find awesome learning material for free online.  A good diploma will do 2 major things for you: prove that you know a decent amount about something hard to learn, and teach you a decent amount about something hard to learn.  Once you have those two things, you can always learn hard things on your own, and prove to anyone who asks that you do indeed know how to learn hard things without help.

Good luck!

EDIT: Apparently the "BE" program, or at least the BE nomenclature, is not as common as I had been led to believe. That said, in much the same way that there are licensure requirements for "pre med", there are licensure requirements for meeting the criteria of a Professional Engineer in the US. I think that if you can figure out what those requirements are (for example by asking any engineering department), you could probably take those specific classes but not complete an entire bachelor's and then apply to graduate school. That said, I'm not in graduate school yet (I'm an undergrad), so I'm not sure. I know people who have taken that type of route, but it may be a result of an unusual system at my college.


Why do professors give 'updates' about their unpublished, ongoing research? Why do some professors arrange meetings to give updates about their ongoing work?  The updates are certainly exciting, especially for the other people who have been in the lab for awhile and was involved in the work in some small way.  But these meetings are also open to visitors, and visiting professors and post docs come too.  Isn't there a fear of outsiders (or even insiders) scooping the ideas and beating them to publication?  Although I highly doubt that, but I'm curious to know.

The main reason is to attract interest to their current and future work, in terms of both public interest and potential students, scholars, and postdocs who might want to work with their labs. Talks are a good way of accomplishing this. Research isn't meant to be conceived, designed, done, and published in a cloistered off world. Anyone who believes this shouldn't be in research.

If the point of research is to advance/exchange knowledge and to improve life, then it deserves to be made a public, accessible resource. Perhaps even work that hasn't been completed. It's important for researchers to be transparent about their work, rather than trying to hide it, especially when they accumulate so much funding, some of which often comes from public, taxpayer sources (i.e. government funds).

You might think visitors are outsiders, but it's important to keep sight of the fact that they likely helped fund the research in some way, and more importantly, that they're part of the people your research should be trying to help -- and there shouldn't be such distinctions on this account between outsiders and insiders.

Professors giving Update , under an okay from institute /university / funding society is to be viewed in a positive way. Too often scientists have been criticised for working in splendid isolation (sometimes meant ivory towers ) and with lesser accountability to public at large. Ongoing research projects of a larger dimension and duation do require an internal review periodically ;  this being made more open and transparent should not ideally invite objections. However , this is best left to professors themselves , as an option to share ;  making a rule or compulsion carries am apprehension of becoming counterproductive.     Prof ME Yeolekar  , Mumbai.


When applying for a PhD, is it okay for one letter of recommendation to come from a PhD student? I am currently a Master's student and planning to apply for PhD. Now, I have directly worked with two professors for research projects. Unfortunately, those two are the only professors I have taken more than one course with too. With no other professor I had two or more classes so they do not know me well. I could be able to convince one of them to write letters for me. But surely that's gonna be a canned recommendation like "I taught him this course and he's got an A". Besides as an introvert, I am not memorable at all. I don't drop by during office hours to have small chats or ask many questions in the class.
On the other hand, I have a PhD student in my research group. He doesn't have the credentials or experience, but he can write a more personal and accurate recommendation letter for me. I have worked with him closely and he can give his opinion from both our personal and academic interactions.

Edit: just to be clear, the two professors I have worked with already agreed to give me LORs. I need a third letter.

Edit 2: I have another option. I have worked as a TA for one semester. The instructor can give me an LOR. But he is neither a tenured professor nor a Ph.D. degree holder himself. So I am not much sure about this option. Is it gonna "hurt" my application?

Edit 3: I collaborated with the PhD student before and we are co-authors of two papers.

You could do this, though it might be questioned. It would be best if the PhD student has some supervisory function in your group, rather than just a "fellow" student. The letter from the student should make your relationship clear so that someone reading it knows whether they should follow up with you or not.

But you can also, as an introvert, work to increase your own visibility with the faculty so that this need not recur. Many of them are possibly just about as introverted as you are.

NO.

The fact that you cannot find enough professors to write LoRs implies that you are some random unknown student in your university. Unless you are applying to a PhD program in a much much lower rank than your current university, you don't stance a chance with this LoR.


What is a "personal tutor"? On Workplace Stack Exchange, one answer to the question
https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/124329/bullying-group-work
says "Speak to your personal tutor. Immediately."
I remember to have seen the word "personal tutor" also here on Academia Stack Exchange. (As I do not remember having seen a country mentioned (also not on the linked Workplace Stack Exchange question), I believe this is a US-concept.)
So: What is a "personal tutor"? Who is this (undergraduate student, graduate student, administrative personell, post-doc, professor, somebody not related to one's university) and when do you as a student get such a tutor? What are their roles?

Thank you!

In the UK, a personal tutor is assigned to you when you start your degree and the same person will generally maintain that role for the whole of your course. They are usually a lecturer or more senior-- never a student, PhD or otherwise. There are often a mandated number of meetings that a student must have with their tutor: once a term is common.

The role of a personal tutor is mostly non-academic. While you could discuss academic problems with them, they are really there to help with pastoral matters, such as wellbeing, or helping you to decide what courses to take or how best to manage your time. Personal tutors are a common choice of reference letter writers for their students' applications for postgraduate degrees, as they likely know the student and their grades very well.

It depends on country / programme but a "personal tutor" or "mentor" is usually available for questions that are outside the scope of the subject lecturer.

These "mentors" will answer, or help the student answer, or get other officials in the institution to answer those questions the students have, be they personal or study / work related.

This may, in some institutions, fall on the programme manager, and you get some really "of the wall" questions that have to be dealt with with tact, diplomacy and discretion.


contact of the editor I sent an article it's been almost 4 months, but still my article is in the same status "submissions being processed", that I have to do is what I contact the editor or I wait for their response, since I have heard when we send an e-mail to the editor, he sends the refusal directly, I wait for your suggestions, thank you in advance

Contact the editor. It happened to me once that the referees were divided, so the editor sent the paper to more referees, hence prolonging the process. He just forgot to notify me. Moving to another journal is a bad decision, since you haven't been rejected yet. What if then you are liaising with two journals and both accept it? Not good.

Also, check the average processing time of the journal. Some do take long time, even up to six months!

Move to another journal. You should have done that a while ago.


Master of Engineering vs Master of Science? I am a Final Year Mechanical Engineering student.
I want to do my Masters in the Design Engineering field.
Currently I can see 2 options:

Master of Science - offered in many Universities ex: GeorgiaTech.
It deals more with research. It requires a research thesis most of the times.
It gets completed in about 2 years.
Master of Engineering - offered in few Universities ex: Cornell University.
It deals more with developing your skills required for doing a job in that field.
It does not require a research thesis. It gets completed in a year.

So, my question is:
1. What exactly do we learn/develop skills/improve/do, etc in each of these programs.

I am unable to get a clear picture as to what exactly will be the change in me brought by each of these programs?
What distinguishes a M.S. Graduate from a M.Eng. Graduate & vice versa?
And which one of these Graduates get jobs in Companies easily in the related field?

The main practical difference between the two degrees, as you point out, is the requirement of a research thesis for the MS degree.  Generally, if you have aspirations of eventually getting a PhD, you should strongly consider the MS, as research experience or potential is a large factor in being admitted to a PhD program.

To answer your specific question, you should be a better researcher after completing an MS, and you will be better prepared for further graduate work.  With an ME degree (considered a "terminal" degree), you'll simply have a Master's degree and (potentially) may have spent more time on your coursework.  Whether or not this prepares you better for a position in industry is debatable -- as you say, many ME programs are one year, which may actually include fewer classes than an equivalent MS (although I've generally seen ME programs that have one or two more classes as a requirement than the equivalent MS degree).

As to which degree leads to more jobs in industry, I'd say it's probably about the same.  Getting an MS will certainly not limit your competitiveness for industry jobs, while (as I already mentioned), an ME may limit your competitiveness for PhD programs.

MSc - focuses on theoretical work, research and is thesis based
MEng - focuses on practical applications of theories, less research compared to MSc, mostly course based work.


Isn't English the common academic language? In a question about university ranking, many people mentioned that language is a privilege for better ranking of English speaking countries.

Isn't a decent fluency in English the requirement for senior academic positions (regardless of native languages)?

Most ranking factors are about research activities. If a professor in non-English speaking country is not fluent in English, how does he supervise graduate students? For supervising/conducting cutting-edge research, someone should be able to read technical literature. Research papers are published in English (and there is no translation normally).

Most non-English speaking countries with excellent higher education (such as Scandinavia, Netherlands, Switzerland) offer the graduate programs in English.

I understand it is easier for native English speakers to read and write in scientific literature, but we don't speak their language, we speak an international language, which is their native language too.

I understand that this requirement is neglected in many countries, but is it reasonable and justifiable to give a senior academic position to someone who cannot read 99% of recent research findings in his field?

Is it acceptable for a professor or even a PhD student to have no understanding of English language? To avoid confusion, consider STEM fields.

In this answer, I will respond to some of the points raised in the question, however without any expectation of completeness.

  Isn't a decent fluency in English the requirement for senior academic positions (regardless of native languages)?

To some extent, it is, although there are probably many different interpretations of what "decent fluency" means around.

  If a professor in non-English speaking country is not fluent in English, how does he supervise graduate students?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but ... simply in their non-English language? There is no general requirement that communication with graduate students (including foreign graduate students!) would have to happen in English.

  For supervising/conducting cutting-edge research, someone should be able to read technical literature. Research papers are published in English (and there is no translation normally).

This is true, however I have noticed that there can be extremely wide gaps between the ability to read and understand complicated English texts and the ability to express complex ideas in English. Hence, a capable researcher can be perfectly able to understand technical literature written in English, and yet be unable to publish their own ideas in English.

Of course, this is not generally the case in all non-English-speaking places, but it probably depends on how English is trained or learned.

  I understand it is easier for native English speakers to read and write in scientific literature, but we don't speak their language, we speak an international language, which is their native language too.

If it is their native language, too, then we do speak their language. Whether our motivation for learning or using English is to communicate with native speakers or with the international community doesn't matter; the result is that, as you say, "it is easier for native English speakers to read and write in scientific literature".

  is it reasonable and justifiable to give a senior academic position to someone who cannot read 99% of recent research findings in his field?

As explained above, comprehension is not necessarily the same as expression. And even then, this statement possibly neglects that some fields might rely less on English than what I am used to from CS.

  Is it acceptable for a professor or even a PhD student to have no understanding of English language?

No, rather not.

Coming back to your titular question:

  Isn't English the common academic language?

Yes, in many fields, it is. But this mere fact has little influence on the effects you allude to. It neither means that English material is inaccessible to someone with low skills at writing in English, nor that ideas and surveys are always developed and conducted in English from the start.

Isn't a decent fluency in English the requirement for senior academic positions (regardless of native languages)?

Let me answer your question plainly:

לא, יש אנשים שמתקבלים כחברי סגל אקדמי באוניברסיטאות ישראליות ואינם מסוגלים לנהל שיחה באנגלית. הדוקטורט שלהם לא נכתב בשפה האנגלית, הם לא השתלמו השתלמות בתר-דוקטורטית באנגלית, וכן הלאה.

You see?

   No, there are people who are faculty members at Israeli universities and are unable to converse in English. Their dissertation is not written in English, they do not do post-doctoral training in English, and so on.


Is publishing a journal article covering failed attempts a good idea? I am currently doing some research on an algorithm that may (or may not) end up being slower than other similar algorithms. The idea behind it seems solid although it will probably not be as fast as other, already known and used solutions. Finishing and testing is of course part of the science, so the research will get carried out nevertheless.

So here is my question: is writing an article about conducted, but failed work a good thing?

My thoughts are that publishing such an article would help people conducting similar research, who would otherwise waste their own time, trying to do the same thing. Saving their time is crucial for the scientific community in my personal opinion, but I am unsure how others perceive the same problem and I do not want others to have negative opinion about my work.

There are many similar questions on this site, but none seem to duplicate this exact one. This question, for instance, covers confirming or denying others research carried out and described elsewhere, while I am talking strictly about inventing and disproving the idea myself. Many other talk about the rationale behind not posting negative results, but that's also a slightly different subject (although undoubtedly related).

In order to give your work sufficient rigour and novelty for publication, you might need to set out the theoretical basis for why you thought your new algorithm would be quicker; and an analysis of why, despite that theoretical underpinning, it was not quicker: i.e. how did reality interfere with the theory?

In theory, the test for whether or not it's a good idea to publish failed attempts, is: would it help other researchers advance? In practice, even if it did, you might struggle to find a journal that considered it of sufficient interest to be worth publishing.

Some fields do now have a journal of negative results, which could be a suitable venue. That seems, for now, to be mostly restricted to fields within the life sciences, which might not be your field.

So you might want to consider going to one of the new mega-journals, which select only on the basis of whether your work is methodologically sound and on-topic, and whether you've paid their publishing fee.

And now you can see one risk there: you've got to be careful to avoid predatory publishers.

Another, less obvious risk, is that given some megajournals have incredibly wide scope (e.g. "science"), they are not always able to get suitable peer-reviewers: so your work could appear alongside some really shoddy work, leaving readers doubting the quality of your work, even if the journal is widely held to be non-predatory.

Its a very interesting idea. showing what you call failed attempts. however we need to realize that many problems, and the more complicated they are , may need many attempts or different approaches. its more steps toward a goal , than failed attempts. I think the word fail , actually implies giving up, maybe give yourself a D grade , or a C, but yes this would show the process , which is very important. so like Ford Model T was most successful, and there were many before that, in development, ford model A, model B, model C , etc, so these were predecessors, and they were in development , toward, maybe the goal of the Model T, which proved most profitable


Should I pursue my PhD dream based on my Undergrad experiences? I'm an Undergrad student from one of the Indian Institutes of Technology and I still have a year left to complete my Dual-degree course in Computer Science(offers me M.Tech & B.Tech by the end of June 2014). I've a not-so-proud-of gpa of 7.5/10 which is around 3.0/4.0 which I assume is pretty low when compared to my seniors' gpa who've taken up a PhD. But, what I've experienced from a last summer's industry internship and the previous summer working under a professor doing research is that I really can't work in the industry for a longer time writing Software as making money is the least of my concerns. The research work yielded in a rejected publication though I was way more satisfied than the internship

I worked under another professor the next winter, published an article in a highly reputed journal in the field of Complex networks and working on another publication this fall. I'll be working along with IBM in a research internship this summer and hoping to do well. A bit of a late realization haunts me day-to-day. Needless to say, my transcripts suck. So, to dodge all the obstacles that I created myself, I'm planning to do research work extensively for the rest of my Undergrad time. Also, I'm thinking of joining the industry after my graduation for about a year or two before PhD for two reasons. One being, my work experience can be of help and can make up for my poor transcript and second being that I can reinforce the industry-is-not-so-interesting belief. The second being not so important.

So, is pursuing PhD from a reputed university still in my scope? What suggestions can you offer for increasing my chances that I can do during my last year? Reading a lot of questions in this forum site, I believed this might be a good place to vent my rant. Thanks a lot in advance.

A 3.5+ is generally preferred but a 3.0 and some solid test scores (GMAT/GRE) can really bump you up in the admissions line.  Keep working on your publications and when it comes time to write your personal essay talk about how you have published already but really want to develop those skills so you can be a prolific researcher.

If you love research, and the creation of knowledge, then go for the PhD it will give you the best training and opportunity to advance your research.

My cents:

Academia is broken ([1] and other articles).
However, you need to show your future employer that you are not just a Adderall user [2].

Thus, I would get a Master's degree in ECE. Now, why ECE and not CS. I consider CS (as well as physics, chemistry, etc) to be a fundamental science. Industry usually is looking for more applied field, which in the case of CS is ECE (IMHO).

Now, in US, is possible to get Master's degree in ECE for free. Apply for PhD school, then drop out with Master's, preferable with thesis option. This way you will show your future employer that you can do: independent research; describe and present your results.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5429651
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/01/health/drugs-adderall-concentration


Education or employment: What is a post-doc? What is a PhD student? I’m afraid this question is mostly opinion-based, but I was wondering if there is any piece of material out there that covers the spectrum of opinions.

What exactly is a post-doc? Is it an education, an employment or something in between? This question is particularly bothering me, since in Sweden post-docs may be financed either through stipends – not paying taxes nor receiving social benefits (remember, in one of the most socially-oriented countries in the world) – or salary. One could argue that, on one hand, post-doc is an education towards becoming an independent researcher, on the other hand, a post-doc is expected to already produce knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

I tend to ask myself the same question about PhD students. Why would PIs bother recruiting PhD students for doing research, if an “army of post-doc-like researchers” would probably be more productive? For example, our university tends to recruit PhD students on H2020 calls which are for research, in addition to H2020 calls targeted for research training.

The legal situation in Israel

I mention Israel first since am involved in a legal case before the Israeli national labor court on this very question: Arguing that those PhD candidates who are required to work all week long, who are forbidden from working outside the university, who can be required to teach up to a limit according to the needs of their academic departments etc. etc. - who contribute significantly to the research (and teaching) "outputs" of the university, should be considered its employees, and the monthly "stipends" that they get should be recognized again as their salary. This is case ע'ע 5439-04-16 (Labor Appeal 5439-04-16). I've authored a booklet on the history of this struggle, which has an English version:

"These are student recipients of prizes": On the erasure of the Technion's junior researcher class

Or get the Hebrew version; in fact, if you can read Hebrew, you can find the court case documents here.

The legal situation in the US

Another, perhaps more relevant, legal treatment of this matter can be found in the recent ruling of the National Labor Relations board, in the case of Graduate Workers of Columbia University, UAW, AFL-CIO vs the University of Columbia (NLRB 364-90: HTML PDF, all case files): The court has found that, indeed, Graduate students who perform meaningful research or teaching work as part of the course of their PhD program (and are paid), are considered university employees to the extent of the applicability of US labor law, especially the laws governing unionization and collective bargaining.

That decision reversed the unfortunate (3-to-2) decision in the 2004 case of Brown University (NLRB 342-42: HTML, PDF), which had itself reversed the 2000 decision in the case of NYU (NLRB 332-111: HTML, PDF).

See also the AAUP description of the Columbia U case and their position.

The actual answer

I can talk for hours, literally, about this subject, and I actually have... but in a nutshell:

Being an employee and being undergoing a process of education are not mutually exclusive; and you always learn when you're starting out in a new career path, be it in industry or in academia.
The common labor-legal criteria for being considered an employee can and do apply to many/most/all PhD candidates (depending on which state in the world, which kind of PhD work etc.)
A university is an organization whose ongoing objectives are to produce research findings and to teach students. If you contribute towards those goals (by performing research and teaching), even if you're also undergoing a process of education yourself, you should be recognized and remunerated as such.
Post-Docs only undergo any sort of education through their practical research work (which, of course, involves learning - but that's the case also for the most high-ranking Professors); they don't take classes, get homework and take exams to see whether they've studied well enough. so about them there should not be any doubt of being in relations of employment.

as for why have PhD candidates when you can have Post-docs - I've already written enough, let others discuss that :-)

Broadly speaking, A PhD is something you need to embark on your journey of research in your field. It will teach you everything you need to have in order to be a good researcher. Its duration varies from 3-5 years. Usually in Europe, you are offered a 3-year PhD and it is viewed as a job. On the other hand, in countries like the U.S. and India, it is a 5 year course. Starting two years are usually devoted to coursework and it helps you understand the basic as well as advanced topics in a better way. After two years, your complete focus is on carrying out research and publish at least 3-4 research papers and defending your thesis in the last year.
A post doc is something you can do after your PhD, as obvious from its name.In this way you can continue to work in your field with a supervisor and broaden your knowledge and experience. Usually 2-3 post docs are considered good. Speaking of duration, it can take around 18-24 months.
Hope it gives you a basic understanding.


Is it a bad idea to point out flaws/weaknesses of your model in your paper? In a modeling paper I am writing, I know that there are some limitations.

Is it a bad idea to point out the limitations? Am I just giving the reviewers more straw for them to reject my paper?

Science is not about getting papers published; it's about writing papers that move a field forward. So don't let worries about reviewers prevent you from adding content that you feel should be there. Indeed, modeling papers that hide their limitations are much less effective at advancing a field than those that clearly explain them.

Good reviewers recognize this and often look in the Discussion for a clear exposition of the model's limitations as well as its strengths. That said, to be worth anything a model must make useful contributions despite these limitations, and it's your job to explain how your model does that.

High moral standards & selfless service to the greater good of humanity aside, there is still a very good selfish reason for pointing out the limitations of your work: if you do it yourself, you can then discuss it on your terms right there, whereas if reviewers find it, you couldn't. What I mean is something like "My method has such and such limitations, BUT it's still good, because

There are still many important cases where it DOES work...
... or it covers a few cases not covered by any existing methods
It may be possible to overcome some of the limitations in our future works
It looks promising because of blah-blah-blah
Etc."

In every research paper I've read (or written), there was a "Discussion/Limitations" section, composed more or less like that. If you don't write it yourself, a reviewer would kindly do that for you, although it would probably look more like "the proposed method seems to have such and such limitations, whether it's still good I have no time to research - reject."

Furthermore, unless your field is completely new and revolutionary, a typical reviewer has already read tons of papers on the subject, has probably done some research of his/her own, and knows quite well what are the typical problems and difficult cases - they expect you to know and discuss them, including inevitable failures of your approach with some of them. If they don't see such discussion in your paper, it gives them impression of you being incompetent, or dishonest, or both.


Supervisor announced he's going to present my work without asking permission, how can I get credited without damaging my career? Short:
My master thesis supervisor want to present my findings at a conference. He did not ask me for permission, just informed me he will do so, how should I react?

Long:
My supervisor early on said there might be an opening for continued work and maybe a phd if everything went smoothly. Half way through he revealed that this opportunity was no longer a option with the reason given being money, not my work. Around the same time I found a sidetrack and with his blessing followed that instead of the topic he originally proposed, which ended up with some interesting findings indeed. He has given general advice once every two weeks on this side-track but the findings of interest were made by me alone.

Now my master thesis is officially done and he e-mailed me that he want a meeting to talk about my report (that decides my grade), and (among other things) writes that he will present the findings from my work at a conference a few months away. This was written as a fact, and part of a longer paragraph.

I don't know how to react. If this is normal behavior in academia I don't want to seem unprofessional (or ruin my grade and chances to use him as a reference) by questioning this, but on other hand I want to get credited for my work.

2-year edit: Got a notification that this question got a thousand views so decided to write a few words as a follow up.

My initial worried reaction to getting information about the grading and the conference in the same email was just stress and lack of experience getting the best of me. Nothing bad, such as not getting credit for my work, followed from this and I am actually a bit embarrassed that I was worried it might at the time.

You should initially react positively.  It is part of a supervisor's job to promote the student's work.  Possibly this is what the supervisor is trying to do, but the supervisor failed to explain what is going on.

It doesn't seem appropriate at all what your supervisor is doing. I would definitely talk to him/her about this and ensure that due credit and acknowledgement is given if and when your work is presented. You should find an agreement, before this happens, to make sure whether you agree or not to your work being presented by him/her.


Should I report a labmate who is into drugs? I am a second-year PhD student in the US. I work in my lab during the night-time. I find that one of the senior PhD students in my lab is into drugs big league. I would not mind that if it were not to affect me, but it does in two ways - sometimes the smell in the lab during the late hours is horrible, and he moans incongruously and loudly at times without taking others' presence into consideration.

Talking to the supervisor may not be of use, because he takes it coolly and I have heard the two joke about drug use in casual conversations. The fellow PhDs also take fun in his eerie ways, and him being an excellent and helpful chap, they do not want to fuss about his habits.

If at all, should I raise this issue with my advisor, the department or the police? Sometimes I feel I should be silent about it all, bite my teeth and bear it for a year as he will graduate then. But at other times, I am so heckled about being disturbed during my hours of concentration. Is there a discreet way for me to handle this tricky situation?

Are you just talking about marijuana? This is (mostly) legal in Washington and Colorado currently, decriminalized in New York (in practice it's similar to  a parking ticket), and on ballot measures in many other states (so give it two weeks). In short, the American public (or more than half of it) has shown signs of moving past marijuana as a moral issue.

Here you write:

  I find that one of the senior PhD students in my lab is into drugs big league.

Which makes me think he's running a meth lab out of your school. But here:

  sometimes the smell in the lab during the late hours is horrible, and he moans incongruously and loudly at times without taking others' presence into consideration

That sounds more like marijuana. (Not sure what you mean by moaning though).

And here:

  Talking to the supervisor may not be of use, because he takes it coolly and I have heard the two joke about drug use in casual conversations.

It makes me think it's a drug that's just actually accepted for use. Which raises the question: Is it possible you are being very judgmental here and are in the wrong?

Normally I would discuss the smell and "moaning" in their own right. You generally have a right to an odor-free work environment. But I also don't know if these are grievances you only have because you have a vendetta against his marijuana use in the first place, and yes, there is a pretty realistic chance that anyone you raise this grievance to will have the same thought. If you portray recreational drug use to his supervisor or anyone else the way you did in your post, you're going to be laughed at and lose trust.

You probably want to entirely let this go. See if you can lessen the vendetta against the drug. It's possible the student has some awful behavior but I don't even have enough information in your OP to seriously advise on this.

I can’t answer from a US perspective unfortunately, because I’m in the UK, but I’ll try to answer your question in a more general context.

Basically, the key issue for you is that this guy’s drug use is antisocial and is making your working life unpleasant. The possible illegality of it comes into this situation in two ways:

You may in some jurisdictions have a legal duty to report it to the police.
If it’s illegal, you’re on extremely firm ground when it comes to getting him to stop, and you shouldn’t be afraid to escalate the situation until it gets resolved.

I suggest the following (with a certain amount of tongue in cheek in places):

Determine the strength of your hand: first, find out whether or not the drug use is actually illegal where you are. If it’s not, find out to what extent the university has a legal duty to protect your working environment regardless of that.
If it’s illegal, or the university has a legal duty to protect your working environment, you’re on very strong ground. Talk to the following people in order, being friendly and non-confrontational about it, but making the strength of your hand and your willingness to escalate the situation clear: the guy himself, other people in your group (who may share your view), your advisor, a trusted person in admin/HR in your department who can talk to your advisor discreetly without pulling the trigger on the whole situation, the head of HR in your department, and the head of your department. In the extremely unlikely event that all of these people are more willing to protect a PhD student taking illegal drugs in their lab than their own careers (this will never happen in reality), you have the option of escalating it to the central university, the police (if it’s illegal), the press (if the police in your country are corrupt), and social media (if the press in your country are also corrupt). Once it gets to a certain level, you have to start asking yourself who this guy is and why everyone’s willing to protect him - he may be a scary guy with connections (have your escape planned ahead of time) :) You also have to ask yourself if it wouldn’t just be easier to switch advisors.
If it’s not illegal and the university has no legal duty to protect your working environment, you’re on weaker ground. You can still escalate things, but more cautiously, looking for someone who might view your situation sympathetically and help sort things out. You should definitely consider switching advisors, if nothing else.


Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism? Me and my friend attend different colleges, both of which are part of the same university. My friend has done the project and as well as me too. Our projects are exactly the same - not a single word is different.  Is this considered plagiarism?

The fact of being at different/same colleges or different/same universities has zero bearing on whether it is considered plagiarism or not.

If you submit a project that includes someone else's work, without making it clear what is your own work and what is not (and crediting the other contributor/s properly), this is plagiarism. This is true whether the other contributor is at the same college, same university, someone not in college at all, etc...

Publish the work first in both your names. Both of you would have co-copyright and original ownership of the text.

You may be breaking another rule in the class, but it's not plagiarism if you own the copyright - which you do already, but would solidify with publication.


How can a freelance writer supply recommendation letters? Suppose, a BSc in Computer Science student has been doing online freelancing for the last 10 years. The teachers who knew him in his undergrad school are either retired, or dead, or doesn't have any contact with him.
Where can he collect recommendation letters if he wants to get enrolled in a graduate school?

Freelance workers can get reference letters from clients who are repeat customers over many years.  Business partners could also write letters.  If you are participant in any industry organizations, colleagues in those organizations could write letters.
If you do not have any of those relationships, you probably cannot get a letter without forming new relationships.


Is it ethical to cite a reviewer's papers even if they are rather irrelevant? We have just received reviews on a paper, and in reading through one of the "borderline" reviews, I recognized that the "voice" of the review sounded like a researcher I associated with at a conference a few years ago. In particular, they use a certain terms in parts of their review customary to this researcher's homeland. I checked the review committee, and this individual is indeed listed. Upon reading further, they suggest some past work which may be useful -- one of which I recognized as this researcher's work (we have some overlap in our fields).

I have not reached out to this researcher, nor have I shared my suspicions with any co-authors. This researcher and I socialized in a group setting a few years back, but have had no subsequent contact besides being in the same circles on some social media.

While the paper this researcher authored is tangentially related, it is not one that I would consider particularly relevant in our discussion. However, being quite certain of this reviewer's identity, it is tempting to "play up" the relevance of that paper in the hopes of swaying the reviewer.

My question: Is this ethical? I do not have any concrete evidence of this reviewer's identity (nor will I ever look for it), but the fact that I feel compelled to respond in a way different than I would otherwise has my alarm bells going off.

Reworded bonus question: If I believe I've discerned the identity of a reviewer, should I report that to the PC?

Note: This question is intended to be about my conduct, not the reviewer's. I do not believe the reviewer has done anything unethical.

Don't speculate about who the reviewer(s) of your manuscript are. Nothing good can come out of having the knowledge. In fact thinking you know who the reviewers are can cause you quite a bit of grief.

Forget about who authored the review and focus on the facts. You think the paper suggested is tangentially related and not really relevant. Therefore you think you shouldn't cite it. As in similar situations, the next most natural thing to do would be to not cite it, giving your reasons. It would take a pretty unscrupulous reviewer to reject your manuscript because it doesn't cite his paper, and even if the reviewer attempts this, he would also have to convince the editor that he's actually rejecting your manuscript for valid reasons. Remember the editor can see who the reviewer is, and will notice if the reviewer is pushing his paper even if the relevance is tangential. Further, remember that the editor can accept a paper even if the reviewer recommends rejection.

Finally, about whether to report this, there's no point. You won't learn anything about it anyway because the editors can neither confirm nor deny the identity of the reviewer.

It's not that big a deal.  I would just do it (and I am prickly as hell if my text, ideas get affected).

Just attach the questionable reference. But make sure there is a relevant one right next to it.  So people see both.  Not much harm done.


Why is online course enrollment limited to specific times when a course is offered? Online course providers like edX and coursera offer free courses, but you can only take/enroll the courses at specific times of the year (not any time). Why is that? If you just want to learn something (not for a degree in accredited institutions), it would be much easier if you could do it online anytime.

Actually for both of them some courses are fully autonomous "anytime" courses, while others are restricted to being offered at particular times.  So far as I can tell, the time-restricted courses derive two benefits from being time-restricted:

It creates a "cohort" of students learning similar things and doing similar assignments at the same time, who can then help one another in the associated forums.
Resources needed to support the course (e.g., TA monitoring, course material updates) can track the progress of the students through the course, increasing the return on resources and minimizing disruption to students.

You kind find two type of courses.

Self-paced: When you select this type of courses you can enroll and take these courses any time of the year.
But the live courses will enable you to enroll only twice or thrice a year. This is because this type of courses will be conducted for large amount of students at the same time. That's known as MOOC-Massive open online course.


I believe my classmates plan to hand in a plagiarized project, how should I handle this? In my class, we have project groups of 4 or 5 students. This period has everything to do with game development. The project is to build a XNA game for children at primary school.

Now, there is one group of students in my class, who snitched a game from the internet and are going to hand that in. I saw a Facebook post from one of the students about "their" game, and a fellow student found almost the exact same game on a Dutch game site.

What is according to you the right way of handling this -in my eyes, plagiarism? Should I inform the project teacher, to have them exposed to the exam committee?

Should I inform the project teacher, to have them exposed to the exam committee?

Yes. Tell the teacher exactly what you know: that there is a game that seems very similar to your classmates' project.

As a student, it's not your responsibility to decide what is and isn't plagiarism, or to decide who should be punished for dishonesty and who shouldn't, or to start a "movement" to let the cheaters know you're onto them. If you believe you have evidence of misconduct, report it and let the administration handle it from there.

I agree with jwg. I don't intend to be rude, but I would call this squealing. It shouldn't be your stuff as it doesn't hold you from achieving what you want to achieve. Actually after the grading took place, if you detect that your grade has been dimished because of the 'exceptional' work of the other group, well then it is another situation. In this case you could still think about reporting the issue.


Ways to tell interviewers you want some time to think about your decision (Employment in Academia) I am interviewing for employment in academic labs as a computer scientist, one of which a childhood friend is in and has some position of seniority. According to my friend who has spoken with the PI on the spot, the PI loves my letters of recommendation, my CV, my cover letter, etc. and the PI is willing to offer me the position on the spot if I don't screw up the interview. However, I am still wishing to keep my options open as there are other labs who have given me interviews during the same week as my interview with this current lab. How do I politely tell the PI I want some time to think about it? There are other factors that I want to weigh in like money, relative interest in the projects, my perceived contribution/role, etc.

Usually, no one expects you to respond to an offer on the spot.

An important distinction to make is that the PI may offer you a verbal offer on the spot but generally it takes some time to get the formal offer. Accepting the verbal offer does not necessarily mean you have the job.

If the PI gives you a verbal offer, then just respond with a compliment (e.g., "Thank you, I am very impressed with your lab") and then ask when to expect the formal offer and when you should respond by.

In Academia (for TT positions), usually the Chair or head of search committee will send you the offer letter with 1-3 weeks to respond to the offer. However, if you know that you are not going to take the position, its better to respond right away so not to waste the search committee time.


Is Facebook a necessary tool for a student? I'm starting a master's degree in the autumn, and I recently received an email from the university inviting me to join the Facebook page for the course.

However, I don't currently have an active Facebook account -- I deleted my account several years ago due to concerns about privacy as well as its overall usefulness.  (Mostly a case of "so why am I spending time on this site?")

Is there any explicit advantage I would get by joining the course's Facebook page, or equivalently, is there any disadvantage of not joining?

EDIT: I understand there is not likely to be an explicit requirement to join the group as official communication will be via email and university websites.  I'm asking more from the point of view of networking, socializing, etc.  Would the lack of Facebook be a handicap?

EDIT: Clarification: By "course" I mean the UK definition: The course is the entire year-long degree program.  In this instance, the department has created a Facebook page for everybody who is doing the same degree program starting this year, and that's what they invited me to.  However, my question applies to other possible applications of Facebook as well.

Is there any explicit advantage I would get by joining the course's Facebook page

If you want to interact with your classmates on Facebook before starting the course, then joining the page would enable this.

  or equivalently, is there any disadvantage of not joining?

If you don't feel a need to do the above, then no. There is no reason to expect this to be any kind of handicap. You will have plenty of chances to interact with your classmates face to face, when the course starts.

Facebook is a useful marketing tool for universities, which is why they invited you to join the page. If you personally don't want to interact with others on Facebook (for very understandable reasons), then there is no need to join the page.

I would rather say there is nothing in the world which do not have disadvantages or advantages.Its up to you how are using it. Take an example of a Computer , you can use it for programming,studies and hell lot of advantageous activities \at the same time u can it to waste your time by playing games and watching movies etc(Look playing game or watching movies etc are not bad at all but if this kind activities will not appreciated if you are doing them by ignoring the priority work).If You see it in a positive way Facebook is one the best way to stay connected with society but if we don't know value of time or have self control then I thinks its  our fault.
"Use the advantages and ignore the disadvantages."


Is it acceptable to add a result to a paper when a journal asks for revisions? A while back, I submitted a paper to a mathematics journal. Since then, I have managed to prove an additional result that I think would improve the paper. If the paper gets rejected, I plan to incorporate the result into the paper and submit again elsewhere. If the journal accepts the paper and asks for revisions, my question is whether it would be acceptable to add the new result when I submit a revised version. The other option is to write up the new result as a separate paper, which may or may not be significant enough for publication.

The reason I ask is that I want to avoid wasting time now. It would be a shame to spend time and effort on incorporating the result into the paper now if I need to remove those changes in the case the paper is accepted. On the other hand, if I can include the result in the current paper, then I don't want to spend time now writing an entirely new paper for this one result.

You can make whatever changes you like in revision.  The key point is that the paper is being refereed again. (Maybe the referee isn't paying so much global attention to your paper the second time around.  But by the way, maybe the referee wasn't paying so much attention the first time around!  There are never any guarantees of that, but you have done your due diligence.)

It is quite common for revised papers to contain many small to moderate changes, including those that were not called for by the referee.  If you think about it, it is probably better not just to make precisely the changes asked for -- you are also responsible for your paper as a holistic document, and localized technical changes may necessitate other changes for the sake of unity, coherence and so forth.  However, as a referee it is a bit disconcerting to get a paper that has too many changes I have not asked for: at a certain point it begins to feel that I have to referee two papers when I have agreed to referee one.  For instance I recall getting a revised paper that was almost 10 pages longer, and I didn't like that much (but I did recommend it for acceptance).

As an author I can think of several cases where I have added significant material to the paper in revision, so it certainly does happen, and at the moment I cannot recall a situation where adding the material seemed to adversely affect the status of the paper.  If there is one extra result that you want to put in the paper and its proof takes only a couple of pages, I think you should probably go ahead.

Although I think you'll get away with it fine, whether it is really better to put more theorems into a math paper in revision is a different question that I am a bit too daunted to fully address here.  It depends on so many other factors, many of which are cultural.  E.g. another answer writes:

  I would lean towards publishing a followup paper instead. Does more for you on pub count.

In most parts of pure mathematics having "more papers than theorems" or "more papers than ideas" is looked down upon.  If in a certain paper you prove four cognate theorems and then later you try to write up a paper on a fifth cognate theorem, there is a good chance that the journal in which you can publish that little paper is so much worse than the first journal that it doesn't specifically help your career to do so.  Whereas if you just appended the fifth theorem in the first paper, you probably wouldn't get any more credit for that either...but at least the fifth theorem would appear in print with little additional trouble on your behalf.  I can definitely think of theorems that I have added to papers in this way (not necessarily literally in revision; sometimes just as offshoots of the main project): I proved them so I want to publish them, but I do not always want to play the "How good is this?" game if I don't have to.

Small change OK.  Big bad.

I would lean towards publishing a followup paper instead.  Does more for you on pub count.  Let's this one move forward.  Plus gives you a little more time to solidify this new finding.

Publish, publish.  Don't perish. Don't perish.


Issue tracking when writing a paper When writing papers (and even more - when revising after collaborators', or reviewers', remarks) it's hard to keep track what is done, what needs to be fixed, what cannot be fixed, when opinions of authors are equivocal (and when an issue raised by one author is not supported by the others).

Moreover, it generates to a lot of e-mail traffic, often with a short remarks.

The question is, is there a issue tracking software (or workflow) suitable for reviewing academic papers?

(As a side note, I'm familiar with JIRA, but never used it for papers. I'm the most interested in answer when someone actually uses a given method, not "well, I never tried but here is [a link to a random issue tracking software]".)

It sounds like you want to use a version control system, combined with a bug tracker. Luckily, Mercurial combined with an online bitbucket.org repository provides a nice workflow. When remarks or notes appear, you add them to the issue tracker at your bitbucket page (note that bitbucket provides private repositories). See this example from one of my software projects.

When working on the paper you can select one of the issues, fix it, add to your repository, with a mention of the issue number in the bug tracker. This sounds like it could provide you with two important things: managing of the growth of your paper, and organizing your workflow of handeling the interaction with the other authors.

I'm testing GitHub ( with GitHub Desktop and Atom )
Not really adept in it, but looks like a potential candidate to me.

Here's a project of mine, if you would like to see how it looks right now-

CTM


Why do people hang up papers on their doors? This has been puzzling me for a long time, I have seen professors and other academic people hang up their research papers on their doors. What is the purpose of this?

My first guess was they were announcing some important papers related to a class they are lecturing, so students can look at them without disturbing professor. This doesn't feel right because there are not many papers studied in a typical class and there is internet to announce these things.

As the time passed I started thinking it is a way of advertising. But, this also doesn't make sense because web pages exists to serve this purpose and few people come to visit the office physically.

Maybe this practice is limited to my country, but any answer is appreciated.

In addition to the reasons mentioned by others, I think there may be something of the big-game trophy hunter about the practice:  "Behold, visitor, I am a mighty scientist, capable of hunting the fearsome [prestigious journal]!"

I agree. It sounds somewhat ridiculous and archaic. My first attempt at an answer would be pride/arrogance or desire to impress.

You know what I would do? If I were a professor on the same cell-block as the other professors, I'd deliberately not hang anything up on my door except my business card with my own personal web site address where all my papers are located.

My door would look more orderly and professional because of that.


How to deal with uninterested students during an optional exercise session? Last week I taught my first exercise session. I am a PhD student so the kind of classes that I will teach are exercise sessions about what the Professor explained in the theory class. They essentially have to work problems and I have to explain and help them with their approach in solving them.

Students of the same year are divided into small groups. I had about 25 students and from what I noticed: 17 were working hard, 7 were working more slowly with less interest and 1 was watching videos with his smartphone.

I tried to get his attention in a kind way several times (by going to him and telling something like "I know that videos are funnier than this theoretical stuff but if you want to practice for the exam you should do also exercises") but even if he stopped and started to read the exercises then he always restarted watching videos.

Since I will not assign grades and this kind of class is not mandatory, his participation will change nothing in his final grade.
So at a certain point I just wanted to ask him why is he attending.  There are many seats outside the class where he could sit and watch videos, but I just stopped to get his attention and I left him watching videos. I made this decision because he was watching videos/surfing the web without audio and without annoying the other students.

What is the best way to deal with these situations?

Do you prefer more or less authoritarian style?

More authoritarian: "If you come to my class, I assume you wish to be taught by me and respect my time. In other words, you are to work on your assignments. If you do wish to watch videos or to Facebook, that is fine, but please do not do that in my class - it is disrespectful to me and in fact also to your fellow students who come here to learn. Feel free to leave to watch, and to come back when you are done and wish to return to the exercises."

More liberal: "It is everyone's own responsibility to learn and I will help you to understand the material and how to master it. If you do not wish to engage in it, that is your free decision, but you need to be aware that this is your own responsibility to engage with the material in order to benefit from it [and pass the exam]." - say it once at the beginning, and then perhaps one more time in the middle of the semester. That's it.

Modify as required, this is just a coarse line of action, YMMV.

At the beginning of your next class, announce:

  Phones and laptops will not be needed in this class.  If you must use your phone briefly during class, I will ask you to step out into the hall to do so.

Neutral voice.

If anyone comes in late, you can say it again, after the person has sat down and gotten comfortable, but right before the phone comes out of the pocket; or you can give him or her a handout with the same information.


Rejection from a legitimate journal, with reviewers recommending me to try a Beall's list journal Recently I received a rejection by the editor of SCI Expanded journal (which I consider to be a legitimate journal):

The reviewer's comments (just a few days after I submitted the manuscript):

  Sorry, this paper lacks novelty, is not well written, and will not be considered due to overwhelming submissions to X journal (SCI Expanded journal).
  Suggest to try: (gives me a URL to a journal listed in Beall's List of predatory journals).

(I have removed the names of the journals above. I have personally checked https://beallslist.net/ and confirmed that the suggested journal falls inside the Original Beall's List. The suggested journal comes with a publication fee of 1500 euros for each article.)

I am quite new to academia. Is the above considered normal practice for a reputable journal listed in the Science Citation Index (Expanded)?

Any advice of what I can do?

Update:

I found that a member of the editorial board of the SCI Expanded journal, is also in the editorial board of the Beall's list journal.

I am quite new to academia, is the above considered normal practice

No. This is abnormal and unacceptable for a reviewer or editor to suggest this.

  Any advice of what I can do?

If the journal you submitted to really is legitimate, contact the editor and escalate this. Simply point out that the review you received pointed you to a predatory journal, and ask if the editor can reach out to the reviewer to see if this was a mistake.

  Update: I found that a member of the editorial board of the SCIE journal, is also in the editorial board of the Beall's list journal.

This is a red flag, and the review you received is another red flag. These red flags suggest that the journal you submitted to is not reputable. I would check with online journal ratings, impact factor, etc. to make sure you are not already submitting to a very low-quality journal (even if it is not predatory).

First, given the wording, this is the editor desk-rejecting your paper, and you are confused because you are new to all that. If the editor somehow implied the reviewer wrote that, ignore his recommendation and run away, submitting elsewhere. Otherwise, consider that if the paper is in fact as weak as the editor claims it is, you are likely to be unable to publish in any much better journal. This is hard for you to judge - we all have blind spots for our own work.

You can submit to that journal and check the review process there by yourself. If it seems suspiciously short with few or no relevant comments regarding contents of your manuscript, this journal is indeed predatory and will publish whatever crap anyone sends. Then, you can either opt to publish to get it over with, or let them know you changed your mind and that you will publish elsewhere because you were unsatisfied with their review process. Sure, you will waste some time to get the response, but you can simply keep working on other stuff while you wait for that response.