How to ensure that putting a product's photo in a paper does not violate copyright? I have put into my paper a photo (available here) that I have collected from the company's website available for free. There is no copyright note, except the one at the bottom of the website and product is available for sale (probably patented). I have contacted the company seeking permission, but they did not reply after a week and I cannot wait anymore.

The paper will be published in an IEEE magazine.

So here are my questions:

How to make sure an online photo carries copyright?
Is citing to their website sufficient to avoid copyright violation?
If received copyright permission, how to use the permission in the paper? (I received permission from another company for another photo). Write it on the image or write "courtesy of ..." (I have seen this phrase quite a lot).

UPDATE 1: Thanks all of you, referring to your answers, I decided to stay in the safe side by removing the photo from the paper. I did not criticize anything and did not admire it either (but it could be a free publicity for them which is ignored despite second email to the company). I just discussed its functionality as an encouraging innovation for particular domain.

However, almost NO ONE yet commented on 3rd question. Can any one help in this regard?

Photography and other creations carry copyright by default

The answer to your part 1 - the exclusive copyright of a photo belongs to someone from the point of its creation, even if no explicit copyright note is attached.

If you had made the photo of that product, then it would be an entirely different question, but redistributing a photo someone else made is legally almost exactly as redistributing a Hollywood movie.

Available for free doesn't imply a permission to redistribute

If something is freely distributed by it's owner, it doesn't come with an implied permission for you to do the same thing. Unless it comes with a licence that explicitly allows you to do so (e.g. the various Creative Commons licences), you don't have a permission to copy that image further. Citing the source doesn't change that.

Lack of response means lack of permission

If you don't have an explicit permission, then you don't have it regardless of reasons - if an author chooses not to communicate with you, then tough luck. It also may be that the company doesn't have free hands in licencing the image - it's quite possible that the copyright is owned by some photographer, and the company has a licence to use it in their website but not in print.

The journal may want clarifications

The journal submission documents will likely include either a statement that all images are your own, or that you have licenced them appropriately. They may leave the licences as your responsibility or require you to send them the documentation.

The other answers are technically correct.

However you ought to think about it practically.

Every company wants to sell their products, and unless your article is saying bad things about the product or company, they're going to be happy for whatever publicity they get via your article.

Unless the company is run by morons (does happen sometimes), they are NOT going to sue you for helping them by giving them free publicity. Even tho they could, technically, if they wanted to.

Just credit the source of the photo properly and you're done.


How to save my presentation if the audience does not reply? Some time ago, I gave a 60 minutes Zoom presentation in a department seminar.
I usually ask simple questions during my talks, in order to keep the audience awake.
This time, about 15 minutes into the talk, I asked some simple questions and no one replied (I waited for about 30 seconds). I guess they were just not listening; in Zoom it is hard to tell.
Is there anything I can do in this situation in order to "rescue" my presentation?
Or should I just keep talking to "no one" and learn the lesson for the next presentation?

In a live department seminar there are often people who are not paying strict attention. Sometimes that's because the talk is not well suited to the audience, but even good talks don't grab everyone.
The kinds of questions you know how to ask in the live presentations you're used to  may not work over zoom. In a roomful of people some may be embarrassed by total silence, and speak up. Then dozers may be jolted awake. In a virtual room audience members don't notice each other. It's easier for them to be distracted, and harder for you to monitor.
If you have one or two colleagues with whom you talk about your work you might practice your talk with them, or ask them to be sure to respond when they attend virtually.

This is, I think, a symptom of the fact that the pandemic has ruined a lot of things and trying to use older methods when teaching remotely are almost certain to fail. But like most things, students need to be taught how to learn. If you want an interactive classroom you have to work to achieve it, not assume that it will occur and certainly not to assume it will be like face-to-face instruction.
Let me tell a story, which may be apocryphal.
There once was a law professor who walked into class the first day and gave out a reading assignment. He asked if there were any questions. There being none, he left immediately.
The next day he returned, gave out a reading assignment, asked if there were any questions. No questions, so he left.
The third day, exactly the same. Readings. Questions? None! Exit.
By the fourth day the student picked up that they had to ask questions if they wanted anything from the professor.
Part of this story depends on the fact that the class was in law, and lawyers never get anywhere if they don't ask questions. But other students are also in the same situation.
That is, of course, a brutal (and not recommended) way to approach it, no matter how effective. But, you need to do something to guarantee that questions will be asked. What you do depends on a lot of things, but you need to find a way. Award points? Require questions for attendance? Something. Don't assume students know what is expected of them, or how they can best learn.
One way to approach it is to ask individuals questions when the silences occur. Do this frequently enough and the silences won't occur any more, since many students would rather ask a question than be required to answer one.
Something. Up to you.


Can PhDs legitimately claim to be doctors? I’ve frequently heard people claim that individuals who hold PhDs are not “real” doctors. These people assert that only physicians can rightfully claim this title, and that it’s inappropriate for PhD-holders to use this term.
For some reason, many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD for example in computer science.

So - should Ph.D.s Be Referred To As ‘Doctor?

Ps: currently i am a PhD student and don't know why the question is being devoted!

In the modern USA the title of doctor is valid for both medical doctors and holders of PhDs in the US, but particular customs may vary by institution. The general rule of thumb for etiquette is to refer to someone however they wish to be referred to. If you have a PhD that insists they be referred to as doctor it would be very impolite to not do so. Likewise if you have an MD who insists that you do not use their title it would be similarly impolite.

In situations where it is important to avoid confusion it is common to spell it out explicitly. Rather than using the honorific use the explicit degree, for example it is very common for email signatures to look like:

John Doe, Ph.D. in Computer Science

instead of

Dr. John Doe

Similarly, an MD would tend to say:

Jane Doe, MD, Cardiologist

or even

Jane Doe, MD, Ph.D., Cardiology

I suspect that your question has another component, which is essentially whether or not it is "fair" for a Ph.D. holder to refer to themselves as doctor. This requires an assumption that the MD is more challenging to attain than a Ph.D., and that calling oneself a doctor is somehow illegitimately taking the status of a medical doctor. Let me just say that the people who have earned these degrees are generally less concerned about this than those who have not, and that the title someone puts after their name doesn't tell you very much about their individual ability, dedication, or experience.

Only Ph.D holders must be referred to as doctors. Physicians have only bachelors degrees, although the medical degree was divided into two stages in the U.S universities, still, Physicians only have bachelors degree. Doctors are researchers who have finished their dissertations and became scholars in their fields. Physicians don’t write a dissertation and all what they do is to “treat” people from illness, not to “teach” students in universities.
Note:  The word “Doctor” is a latin word that means “I teach”, and it has nothing to do with treatment or medicine.


Can I hide my bachelor and master degrees in CV when I apply for a PhD position? I have 1 Bachelors degree and 2 Masters degrees. They are in different subjects, not closely related. I am now planning to apply for a PhD program.

Question: Do you think that I can only mention the most recent Masters degree and hide others? My last degree is closely related with this PhD program. Also, my grades were good in this recent Masters program, unlike the others.

To be honest, I am not happy with my other degrees. My performance was not good and they are not related with the PhD that I intend to pursue. For these reasons, I prefer to not to talk about them. Can I leave them off my CV? If, in an interview, they ask my education before my last degree, my plan is to talk about them briefly.  Do you think this is acceptable?

No. You should not hide anything that you have done -- in academic programs or in work experience.  It doesn't matter whether you think that it is or is not related to the PhD application.

If you made mistakes, then address them directly in your application essay.  What were the mistakes? What did you learn from these past mistakes?  Who are you now, given your experience in these mistakes?

In my opinion, if you aren't able or willing to talk about these "mistakes", then you aren't ready to enter a PhD program.

EDIT

My suggestion reflects a particular moral and ethical code, and it also reflects a certain culture (US Science, Engineering, and Social Science programs). It may not be appropriate in other cultures, and it may not suit your morals and ethics.

To the folks who recommend "only focus on the positives", my reply is "good luck with that".  In my experience, admission committees (and hiring managers) are keen to find any weaknesses and problems.  If none are apparent, they will ferret them out.

If OP leaves these off his/her CV, then there will be holes.  If s/he doesn't address the holes in the application essay, then you are leaving it up to the admissions committee to fill in the holes with their imagination.  I presume they will assume the worst.  (In my experience, this can happen even with evidence of accomplishment.)

If these are included in the CV, then official transcripts will have to be submitted (this is standard in the US), and thereby the committee will see the full record, not just GPA for each degree program.  And if s/he doesn't say anything about them in the application essay, the committee will probably draw very negative conclusions from them.

Finally, my suggestion to address the problems and learning in the application essay doesn't mean that it needs to be long or detailed. It could be a couple of sentences: "These degree programs were not as successful as I would have liked, and but thankfully I'm much the wiser now.  I learned what I'm good at and what I'm not good at, and I learned what I really want to do in my career."

If the interviewers are more knowledgeable than you are, you can include all your degrees.

If they are less knowledgeable, you will loose by  mentioning these degrees in your CV. You should mention them only if there is a law or regulation which forces you to mention them in your CV.

You should discuss this with a lawyer. You know what you want to do; the only thing you have to do is find whether the law supports you. I cannot give you legal advice myself.

(As a lighter answer, since a few people who answered here are telling you to include these degrees in your CV, you can join their institution! In that case, you can include everything in your CV.)


Difference between Thesis and Research paper? My query is about whats the main difference between thesis and research paper, and as i am undergrad, which is more easy for an undergrad to do!!

An undergraduate thesis (or dissertation) is: a document submitted in support of candidature for an academic degree, which presents the author's findings.

By comparison, a research paper (when differentiated from undergraduate life) is: an academic work containing original research results or a review of existing results, which are typically published after a peer-review process successfully checks suitability.

For an undergraduate, I suspect an undergraduate thesis is easier, since I believe the bar for acceptance is generally lower than the bar for acceptance of peer-review.

A thesis might be longer and might be written over a longer period of time.  There is not guaranteed to be any difference.


What is a Brown Bag Seminar? I have seen several questions and also announcements that mention the term "brown bag" seminar. I understand that in American English "brown-bagging" means bringing your own lunch:

  the practice of bringing one's own packed lunch to work.

I would like some sort of a definition in academic setting.

It means it's held around lunchtime and they aren't going to be providing lunch, but you are welcome to bring your own and eat during the event. So the event is somewhat informal.

I have seen "brown bag meetings" where someone gives a talk that is only loosely related to their (or the institute's) work, often more a collection of thoughts or hobby interests, rather than actual research. Talks that do not fit in standard research talks, therefore are more likely "binned" (or put in a waste bag/paper bag for disposal). Those had nothing to do with lunch.


Am I allowed to provide the Camera Ready Copy (CRC) / Preprint of my paper published in Springer Workshop Proceedings online on my homepage? my work was accepted as workshop paper and the conference was held some weeks ago. Until now, the paper is nowhere published. Last year, the Spriner Workshop Proceedings needed 6 months to publish it. I want to provide the paper now on my homepage and/or research gate and/or arXiv.
Am I allowed to provide the CRC version on my homepage/research gate/arXiv? What do I need to add to this "pre-print", e.g. as footnote? What are the typical Spriner Workshop Proceedings rules regarding providing the own work? And I am allowed to do this before it is officially published by Springer?
Thanks in advance.

Yes, I do not see any reason you cannot. If you like, you put a header or footer that the paper was presented in ABC conference and the official version can be downloaded from the Springer website to save yourself from copyright issues. But I think, even without that header you should be fine. (Still, having that line in header/footer is better).
Putting it on Arxiv is more wise and professional by the way. It can give your work credibility and readability as well.


I accidentally failed to disclose a school I briefly attended. Have now been admitted to grad school; how to proceed? When applying to grad school, I did not think enough about the requirements of disclosing past education.  I failed to disclose a school I attended because it was so short and brief and I received all W's, there is no GPA, but there is a transcript.  I did not realize how big a mistake this was at the time.  Now, I have been notified of acceptance from the department, still waiting official acceptance from the institute, and I am very nervous that this will all get messed up.  What should I do?  Tell the school? Decline offer and reapply next year with correct info?

Your options seem to be: tell them, don't tell them and hope for the best, or withdraw.

If you tell them, the worst that can happen is they revoke your admission and invite you to reapply next year. If you withdraw, this will happen for sure. So, I wouldn't even consider withdrawing.

I usually suggest not over-analyzing things, but in this case, I wouldn't just let the sleeping dog lie. You don't want this hanging over your head for the rest of your career. So, I would just send a brief e-mail saying exactly what you did above (and just as concisely) and asking how to proceed. I expect they will say that they will update your record and do not anticipate any problems -- but you should prepare for the worst-case scenario just in case.

Given that grades weren't assigned, there is no way to evaluate your work based on the transcript. I doubt that it matters much whether you inform them or not. Full transparency would suggest that you do, of course.

But if all the grades are W, meaning "withdrew", you might need to explain why.

They have judged that your supplied material is sufficient to decide you a candidate for success. I don't see how the additional information can change that. The same would be true of any informal self-learning you engaged in.

But, IMO, it is a pure judgement call. If you don't tell them and are called on it, your explanation here would likely be sufficient. If you do tell them it would be a bit of embarrassment, but not a deal killer.


Professor being mistaken for a grad student This question is the flip side of Mistook new faculty member to be a student, how big a faux pas is it?

I'm an associate professor, and apparently I look young for my age. When I meet new people at conferences, they often start the conversation with something like  "So, are you a grad student or a postdoc?"  It doesn't particularly bother me in itself, but when I politely say something like "Actually, I'm faculty", they get embarrassed and it kind of puts a damper on the conversation.  I think this sort of thing has probably spoiled a few potential networking opportunities for me.

Are there more tactful ways I can respond to this kind of mistake?
Are there things I could do to "look" more like a professor?  I already dress reasonably neatly (e.g. no T-shirts) and faculty in my field don't normally dress up much more than that.  Should I carry a briefcase instead of a backpack, or something like that?

(I happen to be cis male, work in mathematics, and live in the US, but it would be good to have more generally applicable answers if possible.)

I would take it as a compliment to be mistaken for being younger. And, even if you don't actually feel complimented, that's a good way to respond. For example, you could laugh and say "Thanks. I wish I was still a young and carefree student, but, unfortunately, I'm a professor."

If you make it appear like you take it as a compliment, people won't feel like they have offended you and it is less awkward. The other party may also intentionally be erring on the side of underestimating your age, because it's seen as less of a faux pas that way.

(I often get people commenting on my height. I always act as if I take it as a compliment and that seems to work well. However, in reality, I'm pretty bored of discussing my disinterest in basketball.)

At conferences, you always have the option of putting "Prof." on your nametag. There is a small risk that this looks pretentious relative to the norms of your community, so it's a tradeoff.

Finally, there is one sure-fire way to appear older.

It doesn't particularly bother me in itself, but when I politely say something like "Actually, I'm faculty", they get embarrassed and it kind of puts a damper on the conversation

I'm answering this based on that you do not appear to be bothered my the initial mistake, but how the conversation ensues. In that case, I'd recommend against changing things like how you dress or what you carry, and instead focus on how you respond. Being polite when you tell them the mistake is fine, but the way you express it will define the rest of the conversation. So yes, if you're polite, but serious, they might feel awkward. But if you smile and take it as humorous mistake and tell them with a light, almost laughing tone (not actually laughing, but maybe a little chuckle) that you are a faculty member, then, yes, they might still be a little embarrassed, but they will probably be comfortable about it. Maybe even inject an "I get that all the time." This would be less drastic than changing your dress style or daily behavior.


Is abandoning my PhD degree better for my career path? It is a known fact that reputation and lineage are a very important factor in academia. Master students need recommendation letters to get a PhD opportunity and the same for PhD students looking for a postdoc position. If a PhD supervisor knows someone in another institute or a company, he can very easily help his student get a postdoc or a good job in the industry. If your supervisors are prestigious in the community, you can start your career much more easily than your peers. Conversely, a mediocre PhD supervisor may become an obstacle for his talented student.

I am a PhD student in CS, and I am at the final stage of my PhD. However, I wonder whether it is better to abandon my PhD degree because of the mediocrity of my supervisors. Since a thesis will be stored in a database; once deposited, the PhD student's name will be permanently bound to his supervisors, and if the public perception of my supervisors is low, I'm concerned that I may have difficulty building my own brand.

To address my concern, I would like to know which of the following states is likely to make it harder to become a leading scientist?

having a PhD from mediocre supervisors in a mediocre lab, or
not having a PhD, and building one's name from scratch?

Your argument for abandoning your PhD hinges on a few false premises.

P1) You will wear the mark of your PhD for your whole life.

That is not true. A PhD is, in principle, a degree given to someone capable of independent research. Whilst you do your PhD you may be associated with your supervisors. That's because you're a minnow in the sea and it is the easiest way for someone to know whether you are worth talking to (sorry about that). After your PhD, people will rarely if ever ask that. I say that as a postdoc.

P2) You will exchange your dignity for money if you renew your contract. WHAT? That's something internal to you, an external observer is unlikely to see it that way.

Moreover, if you do not intend to do a postdoc, none of these points you made will apply to industry people. They will just see that you have a PhD and they will think that's worth something.

You must complete your PHD. Sure there are lots of useless PHDs but employers hate quitters much more than overspecailised irrelevent PHDs .So if you do not finish it will count against you badly .If you finish it may count for you .Maybe you should not have started but that is water under the bridge .Given that you have started and are more than half way there you should finish.


When should one include the proof of known results in a mathematical PhD thesis? When writing a PhD thesis on mathematics one needs to quote many results by others, such as

The following theorem was proved by ABC in [1].
Theorem. Bla, bla, bla...

My question is when should one include a proof of the result in his/her PhD thesis, if it is basically the same as in the reference? I do not quite see the point of copy-pasting the proof by others. Of course if one has a completely different proof of the same result, it is probably suitable to include it.

As a general rule, you can cite other people's theorems without explaining their proofs, and omitting a proof is a good idea if it would be a lengthy distraction.  However, there are several reasons why including such a proof could be helpful:

Including it may be convenient for the reader if the proof is short.  It's annoying to look up another paper and discover that you only needed a short argument that could easily have been explained in the original paper.  Extracting information from a reference can be cumbersome (you have to locate exactly what you're looking for, figure out what it depends on, sort out the notation, etc.), while giving your own explanation can help readers avoid some of these difficulties.
Even if the proof is not particularly short, it may serve as a warm-up for new applications of the same techniques.  Reminding the reader how they work may make your paper much easier to read than if you just dive into the newest and most complicated case.

Ph.D. dissertations are something of a special case, because your advisor may encourage you to include extra details in the background sections (beyond what you might include in a published paper).  This is partly a matter of demonstrating your mastery of the area and partly a matter of writing a useful survey for others.  Advisors differ in how they approach this: some think it's a waste of time and it's best just to focus on writing a published paper, while others think writing a more extensive dissertation is a valuable learning exercise.  This is an issue you should discuss with your advisor.

I don't see any reason to copy a proof found somewhere else. I think its fine to say that this result and its proof can be found on this article. In my opinion, the proofs in a dissertation should be your own.


Mediocre/Poor letter of rec from well-known professor vs great letter from not as well-known professor? I'm planning to apply to graduate school next year after working a year in industry (software engineering) but have received advice to get my letters of recommendation and other application parts sorted out asap.

I'm conflicted on who I should keep in contact with for letter-writing purposes-- a professor from a top-ranked school (I plan to apply to this school for  PhD) that I did a summer REU with after my sophomore year but that I didn't see very often and where I don't think I made any real contributions even though he said I was doing a good job (my impression was that he says that to everybody who does research for him). Part of the reason I don't think this would be a good letter was because I did a lot of the work from home (he recommended I do this since I was far and I had a medical condition that made it difficult to commute) so he didn't really get to see my day-to-day work. The work that I was doing was also largely grunt work like running simulations and writing programs to handle data.

On the other hand, I have close relationships with 3 professors at my institution (I attend a small non-research-focused institution):

1 of which is my advisor and I have taken 2 courses with
1 I did an independent study with and did really well in his class, which is largely related what I want to study in grad school
1 of which is new and I'll begin doing research with him soon but hence won't have much time to do research with since I'll be graduating soon (though I do plan to ask if I can continue to collaborate with him on research after I graduate)

I also did an REU (not a well-known school or professor) after my freshman year where my supervisor said that I would do "stunning work" in graduate school, so I could get a strong letter from him, but this was a long time ago so it probably doesn't carry much weight.

So my question is-- should I take a probably not great recommendation from a well-known professor, or strong recommendations from not very well-known professors who know me well and I've formed strong connections with more recently (junior/senior year versus summer after sophomore year). Will it raise flags if I don't seek out a letter from the well-known professor?

Always go for the recommendation from the professor who knows you better. A letter from Albert Einstein that goes "mayradio0508 was never late to class and has nice handwriting" will not carry any weight.

Having said that, it sounds like you underestimate what this professor will be able to say about you. Running simulations and writing programs to handle data is something you do in research! The professor has also said you did a good job, which is a good sign. Besides, of the other three options you mention, it sounds like none of them can comment on your research ability (the third one can, but you've not started doing research with him).

If you're concerned he won't be able to say something good about you, you could always ask him: "Prof so-and-so, will you be able to write me a strong recommendation letter?"

How about getting a great letter of recommendation from your well-known professor?

Consider this the first of many challenges your will face in graduate school. It is not easy, however it will show your ability to abandon your conform zone and your willingness to meet your goals. Be creative and never forget the reason you decided to pursue your PhD.

All the best in the application process!


How honest should one be with their students when talking about the realities of academia? January seems to be that time of the year that I ponder this question often. After the grades have come out, I always get a few students with very low grades (D or lower) coming to talk to me, and wondering whether this grade will have an impact on their future ambitions of going to a top graduate school and becoming a professor.

Another related event that happens in January is that it's the interview season for tenure-track positions in my field. The market is getting increasingly tougher, and plenty of very strong postdocs that I know don't have any interviews.

Watching these things always makes me wonder if it's a bad thing to be discouraging to the students.

Sure, technically it's true that even with a couple of failing grades, you can still gain entrance to a top graduate school, given glowing recommendation letters. And sure, I'm sure that some researchers weren't phenomenal in graduate school but they flourish in their later career.

However, in today's tough market I think that these things are becoming rarer, and in general, unless you stay on top of the track you don't really succeed in becoming a professor/researcher. So I often wonder if it's better to tell the students a bit more of the honest truth. That their ambitions are possible to realize, but that the competition is tougher than they could ever imagine. That they should definitely have a plan B in place. That even if they succeed in becoming a professor, their life might be very different from how they imagined it to be (struggling with a two-body problem, working for a university that you never dreamed of, and so on). I, for one, might have appreciated an honest answer, and maybe that would have changed my career trajectory. And I think enough people with doctorates work for jobs that they could have gotten before going to graduate schools.

So, as an educator, it is bad form to be discouraging. But I wonder if it's actually in their interests to really know what's in store. Do you do this? That is, do you tell your weak students with unrealistic goals that their goals are unachievable?

I am a student so this is coming from a student's perspective.

I think you should be honest with them regarding what going into graduate school entails. For my case, none of the professors I initially talked to encouraged me to go to graduate school, and for good reason. Each of them stated what the cons were to going to graduate school and how the academic job market is now much more competitive than when they were a fresh Ph.D. graduate. Was this discouraging at first? Yes. However, it also helped me in cognitively organizing why I wanted to go to graduate school and I was able to set a firm goal and stick with it.

Those professors often told me that the reason why they would encourage students to take a gap year and think long and hard about the next step is precisely because students often make the assumption that Ph.D. is the obvious 'next step' when it very well might be the exact opposite of what they wanted.

Coming from a student's perspective, I appreciate honesty from professors because it helps me to realize the reality of going into graduate school and potentially what kind of sacrifices I need to make (e.g. a good chunk of my youth, vacation time, etc.). However, I never found it appealing when a professor, who I aspire to be like, tells me that I'm not good enough to ever do what they do without additional feedback.

In my case, when I first approached those professors about my plans to go into Ph.D. to become a professor, my main advisor looked at my records and told me what to expect, where I currently stand, and what I can do to improve should I wish to stay on that path. I think the last bit is the most important piece of feedback I received. The first two parts can help me in deciding if this is the correct next step for me, but the third part is what will help me achieve that step despite the challenges.

So all in all, if I were one of your students, I would appreciate honest commentary on my goals as well as the additional feedback on what I can do to improve so that the choice of pursuing a Ph.D. is still ultimately my decision. This also helps students to develop and mature, I think.

I suspect that this question hasn't been asked by a professor in social science. I say this because I think the OP has little regard for the various factors and complexity which may influence a student's track record.

A student may not perform as well currently, in a certain university and country, doing a certain study, in his current socio-economic and medical situation; but may perform staggeringly differently in another time and place.

Further more, what "top graduate schools" are, is a matter of debate and continuously changing.

Therefore, if you want real intellectual honesty, one should admit to your badly-performing student that you can not predict his future academic track with exact certitude, simply because there are so many chances. Keeping this in mind, there are more diplomatic and intelligent ways to encourage learning in your student's mindset, e.g. telling him that the better he wants to be, the better he will become. His studious attitude may even be rewarded 20 years later when he starts to study Y instead of X. The student might even re-start the same study X 30 years later: you simply cannot know.

Treating your students as if you are 99.9% sure of what they will become seems like treating your students as if they were inanimate objects, of which you can calculate the trajectory using equations from an exact science. I think this way of thinking about students show that professors who teach, should actually get to know something about pedagogy. Because one can know an awful lot and be an expert in his/her subject, but have no clue about good ways of teaching (on a pedagogical and motivational level).


Is it plagiarism for my thesis advisor to publish a paper using content from my thesis without citation? I did my master thesis last year and recently I found out that a group of four faculty members in my department, including my thesis advisor, have published an ACM paper based on that. (A publish subscribe system based on SDN)

I will be honest. The problem statement was put forward by the faculty. The implementation (design of algorithms and coding) was completely done by me in my thesis. Then they further extended it to a distributed SDN controller environment.

In the paper, an entire section is devoted to the algorithms and implementation. Where they have almost ripped off from my thesis. The sentence structures have been changed and some beautification done to the algorithms to make it look concise.

However, I have not been given any acknowledgement or citation. Anyone who'll read that paper will have an impression that the authors were the only brains behind the project.

The university holds the copyright of my thesis. So I am not sure if this qualifies for plagiarism. But certainly, I feel it is not fair to brush someone's contribution under the carpet.

What can I do about it ? Or am I mistaken and they have every right to do how they feel as I am no longer a student there and the copyright is with them ?

Whether or not the department holds the copyright to your thesis is irrelevant. Using someone else's ideas without appropriate attribution is plagiarism, period.

So, if your advisor used your original, non-trivial scientific ideas (or your non-trivial description of those ideas) in his paper without attributing them to you, then he has committed misconduct.

The only thing that may be questionable is whether or not your original intellectual ideas were actually used in the paper. What you describe definitely sounds pretty damning, and the more information you add, the worse it sounds; but as strangers on the Internet, we don't have the whole story.

For example: Given that the idea for the thesis was the advisor's, and the paper describes a non-trivial extension, it's possible (though perhaps not likely, depending on the scope of the work) that your advisor was working on the extended version himself independently of your thesis.

It's also possible that he considers your work to be a straightforward implementation of his idea, and not an intellectual contribution - that is, he believes you were doing the work of a staff programmer, not a scientist or engineer. In which case, an acknowledgement would probably have been appropriate, but it's not necessarily plagiarism to omit it.

The degree to which your work constitutes an intellectual contribution to your advisor's paper is impossible for strangers on the Internet to judge.

I suggest you email your former thesis advisor, tell him you've seen the paper, and ask (in a non-confrontational way) how it relates to your thesis work. Then decide how to proceed from there.

Note that pursuing the matter beyond that (i.e. formally accusing him of plagiarism) may involve some serious negative consequences for you, so consider this carefully before proceeding. The morally just course of action may or may not actually be in your best interests.

What college did you go to? Your thesis was done at a University/College under the instruction of your School. They have a clause in all Universities in England which states that any ideas you come up with/Develop at University belongs to the university itself. This is how the vast majority of Uni's make money by selling patents.

Usually the University will publish ideas/sell patents with the student in partnership. However if its for a small publication (Which no money is received its for the good of the general public) then there is no need to notify the student.

Look up the clauses of your university faculty before making wild allegations of Plagiarism. Having done a Masters you should know to carry out research before coming to a conclusion

Kind Regards


Should I quit my PhD - workload, self-esteem and social life I don't really want a degree.  I just want to get married, and have weekends and evenings off, and chill out and play board games, and have nice conversations with friends, and have time to exercise and eat good food, and partake in hobbies, and read books and play computer games and watch movies and write a novel or two.  Stuff I used to do as a kid, that I can't do as a grad student.

I like my research, and I like my advisor, but I feel like I work a lot harder than my friends in industry, and I'll be putting my life on hold for at least the next two years, while I'm finishing classes and qualifying exams.  Frankly I don't feel like I can survive the next year, and just the thought of staying here for the next few months makes me depressed.

The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was valuable.  I wouldn't be taken as seriously when it came time to apply for jobs, and people would think I was stupid or at least not any better than someone with a bachelor's degree.  At least now I can apply for internships and get interviews.  And because I am a PhD student at a top school, people assume I'm smart, which also helps me find dates, even though I'm obese, wear glasses, and dress poorly.  It puts me in a different "league" and if I quit I'd have to go back to dating losers who only want me because they can't find any other girlfriends.

Also if I quit my PhD, I would never be able to come back, and what if my new job ended up sucking, or I couldn't even get a job?  I do like my work, and I'm glad I get to do such interesting stuff, I just wish there was less of it.

I don't really want a degree.

There are many good reasons to get a PhD. Probably lots of people get say, bachelor's degrees and master's degrees, because they just want a degree, but the number of people who get a PhD just for the sake of getting a degree is (in my opinion) lower (for example, you might want to teach at the university level, see answers here). This is partly because a PhD is in some sense harder and more time-consuming that bachelor's/masters degree, but also that the degree isn't really the point of a PhD, see for example, this answer here by Pete L. Clark. To very briefly summarize, a PhD is a way to 'learn how to learn' and the stuff that you learn is a lot less important than the process of obtaining said knowledge. So your statement that you 'don't really want a degree' worries me a bit. I mean, the degree is not the point, and wanting a PhD is not at all the same as wanting a degree in general. Why did you apply to PhD programs? What was your motivation? What are your goals?

  I just want to get married, and have
  weekends and evenings off, and chill out and play board games, and
  have nice conversations with friends, and have time to exercise and
  eat good food, and partake in hobbies, and read books and play
  computer games and watch movies and write a novel or two.

Don't we all! Anyway, you know, you can do these things as a graduate student. This is easier/harder depending on your exact circumstances/stage of graduate career, but certainly doable. I recently graduated (with my PhD in mathematics), but in my graduate department on Friday nights a lot of us hung out at the grad student bar and then repaired to the department lounge to play boardgames often to the early hours of the morning. Some of us came in to work over the weekends, but not all of us. Anyway, even while physically in the department, we would visit each other's offices and goof off fairly regularly. Okay, for us goofing off also often involved talking about mathematics, so it wasn't entirely a waste of our time. In any case, chilling out and nice conversations with friends occurred throughout the workweek as well. In the first few years of graduate school, I did a really good job of eating right and reading and such, since my time was a lot more structured, and I was able to plan relatively well. Much of my department were regulars at the gym, and quite a few of us were spotted running on the jogging track (some of us were/are pretty good at this stuff: for example, one of did quite well in the Houston marathon and a current student is doing some awesome Crossfit things these days). During major exams, or thesis-writing, or trying to get a paper out, these things got a bit harder of course. Aside from fitness, many of us did well with hobbies. Some of us were hardcore gamers – we even had an informal Magic the Gathering tournament periodically among the grad students; others enjoyed cooking – the rest of us enjoyed the food they would bring in to share; I enjoyed jigsaw puzzles – for a while we did jigsaws in my office, where others in the dept would drop by to puzzle for a bit when they needed a break from work; one of us was in a band, others in in/formal choirs and such; I and some others were involved to various extents in students organizations; and so on. Some number of us got married while in graduate school (not me personally), and one of the students in my cohort had a child as well. How did we do all this stuff? We had an advantage in being mathematics graduate students, since we are not tied to a lab as our counterparts in the rest of the STEM fields, and we had the advantage of being in a department with supportive faculty (who sometimes joined us for weekly boardgames and graduate student bar hangouts) and awesome fellow students.

The most important part of the above list though, were the awesome fellow students. I was in a small department, so it was natural for us all to hang out together, but perhaps you're in a large department where this is harder. Try to find some fun fellow students. They are possibly feeling much of the same things that you are, and if they are in your department they possibly share your interests. If you don't know too many people (if this is your first or second year in the program), organize something – a movie night at your home, a potluck, or a boardgame night. You might be surprised at how many of your fellow students also want to find someone to chill with.

The second most important thing is time management and prioritization. Figure out what's important to you, and then figure out a way to do it. You might have to be very disciplined and focused during the workday so you can run in the evenings, or play boardgames every weekend. But, if there's one thing I learned in grad school, it's that the number of hours you work is not as important as the quality of work you are getting done. You might end up spending less time overall on work, but if you're happier in general, you will probably do better work in the smaller amount of time. For example, I absolutely need some time every week that I can be at home by myself watching TV, probably with multiple cats napping on me. This might seem like wasted time to the outside observer, but really it's time that I need to recharge so that I can get actual work done at other times. That's just the way I work.

  I like my research, and I like my advisor,

That's really great. I mean this sincerely. The opposite is sadly far too common.

  but I feel like I work a
  lot harder than my friends in industry, and I'll be putting my life on
  hold for at least the next two years, while I'm finishing classes and
  qualifying exams.

Well, to be frank, it is possible that you are working harder than your contemporaries and that you are putting your life on hold, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Lots of people have lots of life-changing stuff happen in their mid-20s. For example, it seemed to me for a while that everyone that I knew in my age group was getting engaged, married, or having kids. I decided to count in 2013 and here is what I found

51 people I know got married i.e. about 1 wedding per week.
31 people I know got engaged i.e. about 2.5 engagements per month.
19 people I know had a baby i.e. about 1.5 babies per month.

(The count is with multiplicity, that is, if two people I know independently get married, I counted two weddings. There were no twins/multiple births that I'm aware of.) That's pretty intense!

These are all cool people and I wish them all the luck, but I don't want to be getting married and having kids just because all my friends seem to be (I mean, what an odd story to tell your grandkids someday).

Again, yes a PhD is hard work, hard work that doesn't ever get compensated for in any 'real' way. But the point of the PhD is not some eventual reward, the point of the PhD is really just the process of the PhD. Most likely I will never make the same amount of money as my friends with MBAs; they will probably have fancier job titles than me, and depending on where we are in the world, they might get more respect and power as well. But (forgive me) a PhD craves not these things. If you want prestige, power and such things, a PhD is not the right way to go at all.

If you're getting a PhD chances are that you have somewhat different priorities than the average person (which is fine, just as the average person's goals are also just fine). My friends who are younger than me have much more seeming grown-up lives true, but they are on a different track than me, and it doesn't really make sense to compare.

  Frankly I don't feel like I can survive the next
  year, and just the thought of staying here for the next few months
  makes me depressed.

This is concerning. Please consider talking to someone directly. It's great that you asked AC.SE this question, but we are after all strangers on the internet. Talk to someone you know and trust. Your university probably has a counseling center. Talk to your advisor/mentor.

Graduate students are often discouraged and depressed (I was no exception, see here), for example, see this article. The 'usual' discouragement often passes, but it is not uncommon for us to have undiagnosed mental/emotional health issues. A trained professional is a much better person to talk to about these things, and I hope you will consider doing so.

  The problem is if I wasn't a PhD student, I'd just be another fat ugly
  loser with no social status, and nobody would love me or think I was
  valuable.

This seems very unlikely to me. From just this question itself I see that you enjoy reading, and playing boardgames and video games, and enjoy good food and hanging out with friends; from this I see that you have hobbies and interests, and enjoy people. You asked this question, from which I gather that you can be introspective and that you are giving actual sincere thought to what you want to do with your life. This is all from this one question. The poster of this question seems like an interesting person to me.

Some of us are fat and some of us are less than conventionally attractive. Each of these things comes with barriers that one has to overcome. Conventionally attractive folks have their own set of hoops to jump through too. Yes, there do exist people in the world who think 'this person is overweight/stick-thin/different race than me/unattractive/the opposite gender/something else and therefore I do not value them', and those people can go f* themselves. There are enough of the rest of us too though.

  I wouldn't be taken as seriously when it came time to apply
  for jobs, and people would think I was stupid or at least not any
  better than someone with a bachelor's degree.

That's kind of a judgmental statement about people with bachelor's degrees. Anyway, all of this depends on what kinds of jobs you're applying for. There are some jobs where having a PhD would actually hinder you (see here).

  At least now I can apply
  for internships and get interviews. And because I am a PhD student at
  a top school, people assume I'm smart,

This is also a worrying statement. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting your statement, but in case I'm not, please look up imposter syndrome, it's distressingly common in academia; in short, this is a phenomenon where despite much evidence to the contrary, someone is convinced that they do not deserve the success that they have achieved (also see this question).

  which also helps me find dates,
  even though I'm obese, wear glasses, and dress poorly.

If you think that wearing glasses is hurting your ability to date, you could wear contacts. Similarly you could try to dress better (I recommend the show 'What Not to Wear'), or try to lose weight.

  It puts me in a
  different "league" and if I quit I'd have to go back to dating losers
  who only want me because they can't find any other girlfriends.

The people I know that are single do not all look alike, or dress alike, or all have poor vision. There isn't much that's common to them than the fact that they are single. You seem to be saying that if there were two individuals who were identical in every way except that one is in a PhD program that the grad student version would get more dates – I simply do not buy this. I might be willing to accept that this would be a true of a man, but I absolutely do not buy it for women.

If you think someone is dating you just because they can't find another girlfriend, please dump them. Similarly, if you think someone is dating you just because you are a PhD student, please dump them just as fast.

  Also if I quit my PhD, I would never be able to come back,

I know this guy who was a PhD student in my department (mathematics) in the 60s, didn't finish, left with his master's and was teaching in community college. He kept doing math on his own time though, and he came up with something cool, enough that a faculty member he had been in touch with got him back into our program and he eventually got his PhD in 2011. He is an inspiration. (See here for more such stories). So, yeah, I disagree with this statement.

  and what if
  my new job ended up sucking, or I couldn't even get a job?

Yeah, it's possible. But it's possible that you couldn't get a job with a PhD. Or that the earth is destroyed tomorrow to make way for an interstellar bypass. But worrying about this will not help us in any way.

  I do like
  my work, and I'm glad I get to do such interesting stuff, I just wish
  there was less of it.

You know, reading your question, it really seems to me that it's not that there's too much work, but more that there isn't as much fun non-work in your life right now. I would really suggest trying to build a social circle among your fellow graduate students, not only for having people to do fun things with, but also for people in similar situations to talk to. I know that for me it was really helpful to talk to my fellow students about my doubts and concerns, because we were all in the same boat. It sounds like you are very concerned about dating, so for what it's worth, lots of graduate students I know dated other graduate students.

While on the subject of dating, please consider whether you're giving too much thought to it. It is nice to have a partner that you can talk to, who will support you and care for you when needed, but finding such a person doesn't need to be take over your life. I strongly believe that successful relationships are composed of people that are also happy on their own and in their own skins. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to work on your own happiness for a while before seeking out a partner, particular since when having self-esteem concerns it is very easy to find oneself in abusive and/or unbalanced relationships.

I would also recommend that you give some serious thought to what you value most in your life and what you want to do with it. What are you looking for? What is your dream job? It will probably help to talk to someone directly about such things too. You said that you like your advisor, so they might be a good person to talk to. Most of us that have been through graduate school have dealt with these things to some extent.

Depending on this self-examination, you might decide that a PhD is not for you. This is fine. Or, you might decide to stick with it. This is fine too. With the caveat that you're doing it for the right reasons. Some of us hang on to PhD programs with this notion that 'quitting is bad'. That's a poor reason to stay in a PhD program. On the other hand, if you truly enjoy doing what you're doing, and you want to keep doing it for the rest of your life, that's a great reason to hang in there. If you want to stay in the program so that some hypothetical someone might deign to date you, that's a poor reason to stick around, and also such a person clearly isn't worth your time.

Getting a PhD can be hard work, probably harder work than your contemporaries are doing in industry (I speculate, I've never had a job in the real world). It is rewarding in its own way though, to some people. This isn't a value judgment. Math makes me feel like a complete idiot almost all the time. The remaining 0.01% of the time is pretty good though, and that's enough for me. Mostly this makes me a masochist I think, but that works for me. But it makes perfect sense for it to not work for everyone, and honestly these other folks are probably better adjusted anyway.

Lastly, your last paragraph makes me think that you're worried that you're making irreversible decisions. You're not. If you choose to leave your PhD program now, you can still come back to get a PhD (probably somewhere else). If you started your PhD with the goal of being in the academic world, but decide later that you want to be in industry, you can still do that. If you want to start back from scratch and work in sociology (say), you can still do that too. These things might require some work, but they are all still possible.

Best of luck in your decision-making! I'd like to reiterate, pretty much all of us wanted to quit at some point, and pretty much all of us wondered why we were doing it. You're not alone!

I would like to point out that 99% of the people out there don't give a darn about your being in a PhD program versus "only" having a bachelor's degree. The only people who care would be employer's looking for a PhD person to fill a specific position and snooty people like you are projecting yourself to be, by thinking that being in a PhD program actually gets people to like you more. At best, being in the PhD program might give you more confidence which is what attracts people.

I will also point out that while you may believe you "work a lot harder than your friends in industry", I can guarantee you that you are almost certainly wrong in that regard. New grads tend to have to work their butts off to get noticed in their early years. They are making money, so they do have more opportunities to have fun experiences than a college student just scraping by, but that doesn't mean they have more time or are under less stress. But I suppose that also depends on the type of job and degree your friends have and their own ambition levels.

With regards to: "I just want to...." and not having time to do it has nothing to do with being in a PhD program. It is what happens when people transition from being a child with no responsibilities to anyone but their self to actually growing up and being a responsible adult where they not only have obligations to their self but to others also. If you think being in a PhD program leaves you no time for the fun stuff you like to do, wait until you get married and have children. You will long for all the free time you have right now in your PhD program.

Finally, part of the reason people prefer to employ people with college degrees is not just because of the education. Many jobs that require a degree can be adequately learned and performed by someone without a degree. One of the key reasons that employers like people with a college degree is that it shows that the person is not a quitter. Almost everyone goes through a phase or phases in their college career where they just want to chuck it all in and quit. Many people do just that. However, those who persevere and finish their degree demonstrates a high degree of willpower and the ability to do what needs to be done whether they want to do it or not. Employers want that kind of person because there will be many times on the job where people will want to chuck it all in and quit. Employers want people who will persevere, not those who quit.

I am of the opinion, you made a commitment to get a PhD. So get the PhD. Don't quit. Quitting easily becomes habit forming. I also think you are falling prey to the grass is greener syndrome.


Can I Submit a Professor's Recommendation Letter from my Personal E-mail? I'm currently applying to a Chem Eng PhD in the US.
One of my professors wrote me a recommendation letter, but requested me to submit it myself to the university's website using my personal e-mail, as he will be very busy with some year-end obligations.

Is it okay to do such a thing? I cannot find any information about if this is acceptable or not...

Of course, I wrote an explanation on the page right before the Recommendation Letter, explaining the situation and listing his contact information if they ever need to confirm its authenticity.

Thank you for your answers!

This seems like a bad idea and I would do it only as a last resort.  Even with the disclaimers, it could raise questions in the reader's mind as to whether you forged the letter.  I think it was not appropriate for the professor to ask you to submit it yourself.

If the letter writer isn't able to submit the letter himself, a common alternative is for some other university employee, such as an administrative assistant, to submit the letter.  I would suggest pushing for something like this.

it's absolutely ridiculous that everyone on here acts surprised that a prof would do this. of course this happens. the fact of the matter is that there's no nice solution to it. and I'm afraid admins would act as pollyana'ish as the people in the comments here. the only good (above board) advice is perhaps try to get an alternative letter writer.


eInk eBook reader for reading scientific PDF papers (as of 2018) While reading lot's of papers for my Thesis, I was looking for another solution than printing important papers. So I started browsing the internets, watched tons of reviews on YouTube, etc.

I learned that, as of 2018, most of the current eInk eBook readers support PDF reading. However, none of the reviews covered, if the readers can be used for highlighting and adding annotations to the PDF-files as necessary for a sufficient literature review.

Therefore, I wanted to ask if any of you can share their experiences with certain devices and include some advantages and drawbacks. Some rather outdated discussions on this topic does not cover current devices.

I thought that probably devices that support working with a stylus (such as Onyx Boox Max, reMarkable, etc.) are more suited for excessive reading (and marking). What do you think.

I'm not asking whether or not to read on an eReader, but trying to shed some light on which device in this giant ecosystem is suitable for the needs within academic work.

I love my Kindle and was looking for a solution that would allow me to read scientific papers on epaper display. Generally, that boils down to finding a reader that has a screen big enough so that it can acomodate single PDF page, with margins possibly removed.

I don't annotate printed papers much, so option of having a stylus is not deciding for me. You'd have to think how much marking does your workflow involve. For me, the speed and software quality of a reader are first priority for me, as you have to be able to read comfortably before you can start thinking about annotation.The screen has to be also big enough to read PDFs comfortably.

That said, recently I have been contemplating two readers: reMarkable and soon-to-be released Onyx Boox Note, both sporting a little more than 10" display. Both adverise as supporting marking of documents. The reviews for the former unfortunately point out that it's reading experience is sub-par, the latter has not yet been reviewed, as far as I know. I've also emailed manufacturers of those solutions and asked for a precise dimensions of active part of the screen (to know whether PDFs fit well). Nobody answered, what is not very reassuring.
EDIT: reMarkable manufacturer has replied stating that the screen dimensions are 210x162 mm.

Kindle Paperwhite is great for reading entertainment books. I was looking for a device for reading academic books and paper as well, my research shows three devices/brands:

Sony DPT RP1(13.3")/CP1(10.3"): good looking, really light, not good writing experience through
Onyx Boox Max(13.3")/Note(10.3"): with Android 6.0 system's full functionality
Remarkable(10.3"): best writing experiences, seems battery not so good

I have been struggling back and forth (mostly because none of them is cheap).


Colleague blames me for not spotting typos when I only reviewed the structure and content I am a graduate student (PhD) in a STEM program.  A fellow lab mate of mine asked me to review a chapter (basically the background/history of their project) of their graduate thesis a couple months ago.  It was during my finals, I had conference papers due, along with the pandemic shutting everything down; it was a crazy time.  I informed this person I was really busy, but I would try. They sent it to me (in PDF format), and I read through it and made some suggestions on content, ideas, and presentation. It was in rough shape; there was a lot of work to be done, but their main concern was if the content made sense and had good logic flow.  I replied with my opinions. This was a favor from me without compensation. The thesis was in English and the lab mate was a native speaker.
Fast forward to now, this person defended their thesis this week and passed.
Yesterday I received a very passive aggressive text message from this person that stated the following (mostly paraphrasing):

The only real critique I had on my thesis was that the chapter I sent you had typos.  I went through this chapter again and found quite a few.  In the future when someone asks you to review a chapter you need to carefully check and find typos because it’s embarrassing to send a final thesis with a chapter filled with typos.  Its disappointing when you rely on someone and they screw you I hope in the future you do a better job.

The rest of the text chain did not go well.
Let me start off by admitting that I am able to see my fault in this.  I could’ve (should’ve) done a more thorough job in editing.  But my question is: Is it really my responsibility to find typos? It’s always been my view that you polish something as much as you can before sending it off to others. They sent it in a PDF which I can’t edit (also no indication of spelling mistakes, and its so easy to gloss over mistakes), and I informed them I was super busy, both excuses, but still a little relevant.  I also was dumbfounded that they didn’t do a single edit after mine.  I feel ultimately it is their graduate thesis and their responsibility for its contents.  I feel I can’t be blamed for this person literally not pressing the spell-check button.
In hindsight I should’ve been more assertive with this person by saying I didn’t have enough time to fully give myself to editing.  This is a lesson I’ve learned.  They are now removing me from their acknowledgements (I couldn’t care less), but what I do care about are the things they are telling other people about me (I screwed them; I’m lazy; etc.).  I replied to their texts expressing my view that the typos are not my fault, and it quickly turned into a blow out where I just ended up apologizing and asking not to discuss it further.
What could I have done better? What should I do now?  Am I justified in my opinions?
PS:  Thank you all for your responses and encouragements.  I was feeling pretty bad about the situation, but I feel a little vindicated now.  I’ve learned a lesson: I will focus on clear communication and setting expectations.

"The only real critique I had on my thesis was that the chapter I sent you had typos. I went through this chapter again and found quite a few. In the future when someone asks you to review a chapter you need to carefully check and find typos because it's embarrassing to send a final thesis with a chapter filled with typos. Its disappointing when you rely on someone and they screw you I hope in the future you do a better job."

This is unfair. What happened was, at best, a miscommunication on their part. They somehow thought you would check thoroughly for typos, which you did not have time to do. Unless you told them "this chapter is perfect and doesn't need more editing", I have trouble imagining why they would assume the chapter was camera-ready.

Let me start off by admitting that I am able to see my fault in this. I could've (should've) done a more thorough job in editing.

I don't see that as a flaw. If anything, perhaps you could have communicated more clearly about what you were able to do, as well as what you did not do (thoroughly check for typos).

I feel ultimately it is their graduate thesis and their responsibility for its contents.

Exactly right, and this is truly the "bottom line" here. No one else is responsible for the content of your thesis but yourself. Getting help does not absolve you of the responsibility to proofread your own document and when you defend, you are supposed take full ownership over what is written.

what I do care about are the things they are telling other people about me (ie I screwed them, I'm lazy, etc).

The word for this is "bullying". This behavior is not acceptable and should not be tolerated by you or anyone else.

There is an old joke that goes like this:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He spots a man down below and lowers the balloon to shout: “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man below says: “Yes. You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees N. latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees W. longitude.”
“You must be an engineer” says the balloonist.
“I am” replies the man. “How did you know.”
“Well” says the balloonist, “everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost.”
The man below says “You must be a manager.”
“I am” replies the balloonist, “but how did you know?”
“Well”, says the man, “you don’t know where you are, or where you are going. You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problems. The fact is you are in the exact same position you were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault.”

Long story short, some people just have a strong need to blame anyone but themselves for mistakes.


My research paper filed as a patent in China by my Chinese supervisor without me as inventor I completed my PhD 3 years ago from a university in the UK. Today I was looking for some papers in google scholar. I found a patent in China. The patent was written in Chinese however, all diagrams/figures and equations were exactly same as one of my PhD research papers, which was also part of my PhD thesis.

I translated Chinese text to English I found that work is exactly....same as my PhD thesis and research paper. My research paper was published 1 year before the patent was filed. When I translated the inventors name. I found one of the inventors is my PhD supervisor, who is Chinese but works in a UK university. I couldn't believe it. This patent was filed by a power company in China with my PhD supervisor as one of the inventors.

I am fully aware that the research paper is an open source idea anybody can use it. However, this is the case of copyright infringement. I have full right on text, diagrams, figure and tables in my research paper and my PhD thesis. They have copy-pasted diagrams as well. These diagrams are scientific diagrams nobody can reproduce them without the data.

Now, I am not sure, where should I complain?

should I first confront my supervisor directly as he is one of the inventors? or
complain to the university, because if this paper is a patent then only the university has first right over it before a power company in China. I never gave any consent to sell my research work or file a patent of my work without me being the inventor.
Another issue is that I did research at a UK university. This patent is filed in China. What actions I can take?

This sounds like a clear-cut case of a violation of academic ethics to me - if he’s willing to steal work from you, how could anyone trust anything he’s ever published? I’d strongly consider going to talk with the head of your faculty, school, or department, depending on how your university’s hierarchy is structured, so that the university can begin academic integrity proceedings against him, and I’d also consider talking to the university’s lawyers about what your legal options to dispute the patent are, and if you would be able to file one in the UK.

Are you sure that the officer knew that the patent is just a translation and piracy of your work? Like sending them an complaint or something. I really think it is possible that they just failed to cover some PhD paper in English.
I can help you in the translation the Chinese.

Also, as far as I know, patent is to gain protection by disclose of the technique. So the Chinese government will no way benefit from such patent(because it should be open to everybody due to your published paper). It matters only with your supervisor's profit.


What is the academic argument against Sci-Hub? I know that some consider certain activities of Sci-hub to violate the law in some jurisdictions. Many of the previous questions and opinions related to Sci-hub have focused on these legal aspects (and they are certainly important to consider).

However, I am wondering what are the main harms or downsides associated with the existence of Sci-hub and similar services from the perspective of academics, researchers, and students. I am asking because this topic is relatively new to me, and I would like to better understand the main cons of Sci-hub as perceived by fellow academics (as opposed to publishers or lawyers).

What is the academic argument against Sci-Hub?

There are none.  The arguments against sci-hub are legal or economic.  Copyright is a legal right, not a moral or intellectual right.

You could argue that repositories like ArXiv or open access journals are better than sci-hub because they are more reliable.  But that is not an argument against sci-hub.

Sci-Hub violates copyright law.

Do you believe in copyright law? I'm certain you use a lot of copyrighted things in your work (e.g. Windows, Google Chrome). When you use a program like Google Chrome, you are supposed to agree with the terms of service. Typically these terms will include something similar to this line:

  9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

What Sci-Hub does is say "I don't care about this, I'm taking your program and reverse-engineering it anyway, because it is for the greater good"*. If we take this to its logical conclusion, then to do research I need to have access to a computer (therefore it should be permissible for me to rob my local computer store), power supply (ditto for siphoning power off the local power grid), and install a pirated version of Windows (my grant is already too small to pay for software licenses, Microsoft already makes billions of dollars in profit anyway). Hell, if I need grant funding to send a space probe to Uranus and NASA rejected my application, I should be allowed to hold the NASA director hostage until he funds me. It's all for the greater good.

If you've read the Harry Potter series you might recognize that phrase as the mantra of the Dark Wizard Grindenwald.

All that said, it's ultimately up to your personal values and morals. I am against using it entirely, and would not approve of anyone who does.

PS: Here's a recent question by someone looking to make money off a textbook. If the book is published, Sci-Hub is undoubtedly going to pirate it too, because making its information accessible to all is for the greater good. Is it? Again, it's up to your personal values and morals.

*If you think Sci-Hub is a benevolent entity that only breaks the laws by sharing the files it acquired legally, read the link.

Edit:

Tried to access a particular article and ran into this error message:

Thanks, Sci-Hub. /sarcasm


Can I refuse a grant position I was offered and still hope to work there in future? After an interview, I was offered a pre-doc grant for one year. Although I'm very interested in the research, I have other reasons to prefer staying in my current position: I think it would be easier for me to pursue the PhD I want from here.
Is it possible to kindly refuse the proposal and still hope to work with that group in the future, or would I burn bridges this way? If it is possible, how can I refuse the proposal without offending anyone?

Professionally, they should understand, if explained to them in a polite and respectful way. After all it is your life, and they need to respect your decision. Yes, it is disappointing, but it should not burn bridges - good people are not easy to find and they should be happy to keep in touch; who knows what the future brings.

However, if they were so disappointed that they would be indeed offended by your decision, then it is likely that there are other problems lying in wait for you at that group, anyway.

I assume this is for the UK because of your profile and the fact that you call it a "grant." I don't know how it works in the UK and much less the specific dynamics of your case, but I can tell you that in the US people turn down offers all the time based on their interests at heart, and although it's of course disappointing we acknowledge people's desire to pursue their own happiness (hey, it's in the Declaration of Independence).


Quit a PhD for another PhD During the last month, I applied for PhD programs in some of the top US Universities in my scientific field. At the same time, I applied also for a PhD position in a very good European University. About one month after I submitted my application to this European University, I was offered a full-time, funded PhD position, in which I was supposed to begin as soon as possible.

Admissions for the US Universities are announced in the spring. So, I currently have an offer from Europe and a very short deadline for accepting or rejecting this offer. My ultimate career goal, however, is to study and work in the US, and there are some serious reasons for this. If I reject this offer from Europe and if I won't be admitted in the US, I will have lost every chance for a PhD, since a long educational gap will have been accumulated, putting my career at risk.

So, I'm thinking to accept this offer from Europe, until next academic year, and if I have a positive answer from the US, then quit my PhD studies in Europe and begin a new PhD in the US. I would like some insight about people in Academia. I acknowledge that such a scenario might affect the whole PhD project because of my possible withdrawal. Would this considered to be immoral? Could I have any consequences? Could this choice of mine - quit a PhD for another one, in a new country - seem bad to prospective supervisors in the US?

I already know that pursuing a PhD is a serious career choice, and I have no intention to take silly decisions for no reason. I just want the best for my career. To my eyes, this would be no different from quitting a job for a better one, for a better "company", in a "market" with greater opportunities. I would appreciate every advice from you people, since I have no experience related to Academia other than my undergraduate studies.

Quitting a PhD because you realise afterwards that it's not the right path for you is fine. A fellow student during my PhD did so (due to homesickness, primarily), and immediately started a PhD at a university in his home country. The supervisor/group leader/etc were disappointed but didn't hold it against him.

Quitting because you only accepted the position as an insurance policy is a very different matter. If it's not for personal reasons, such as those above, leaving mid-course for another university will be seen as a very selfish act. Even more so if anybody finds out that you were hoping to do it before you even started. From your description it sounds like your field is relatively small. That means people tend to know each other, which means this could very easily hurt your reputation far more than attending MIT (or whichever other prestigious institute) would help it.

In short: you shouldn't accept a position unless you intend to stick with it. You have an offer on the table, you can either accept it or reject it. If you accept it, the right thing to do is to withdraw any other applications which haven't yet responded. If you aren't willing to commit to it, the right thing to do is to reject the offer. There is a third option, too: you can ask the European university if they'd be willing to grant you an extension to the decision deadline. How likely this request is to be accepted strongly depends on many things, including national and institutional cultures and the length of deferral you're asking for.

It is perfectly fine. The best option for you will be to accept an offer now. And in case you get an offer for a Ph.D. in the USA next year, decide then.  You'll in great shape to make that decision. By that time you will have more information and understanding to make an optimal decision for yourself. You may really like your European group/advisor and choose to stay in Europe. You may decide to quit Ph.D. altogether. In case you are unable to get the US to offer the world remain in balance and no question of choice arise.

Edit: In case you get an offer (only in case) from USA next year. Consult your current advisor. He/She is really the correct (and the best) person that you should really listen for advice.

Rebutting @Matias_Andina: "This is unfair to another Ph.D. prospect": The person which is supposed to be hired if you leave this position is actually not capable enough to get hired. Else they'll be asking this question, not @teufel.

"you shouldn't accept a position unless you intend to stick with it...": Every hiring takes into account that things may not work due to thousands of reasons and people leave companies for their own goods all the time. This is a market place.

Accept the offer. Good Luck.


Research adviser is trying to give my thesis to another student. What to do? Going to sound dramatic, but something just isn't right about my research adviser who is trying to give my research to another student.  I don't know the student at all, but they are attempting to force me into a "partnership" with them.  The student has zero research accomplishments in my research area, but I've been told to tack them onto my research and share a years worth of findings with them.  Yes, really.  What would you do? Have you even heard of something like this before?

What would I do?

Mentor the guy, get him involved in my project, train him up. If you're as experienced as you claim, and he's as inexperienced as you think, you've got nothing to worry about except the time investment it will take to get him up to speed.

Have I heard of something like this before?

Yes, it's absolutely normal. Your research advisor is paying you a compliment -- she obviously thinks you're ready to mentor someone more junior. As someone who supervises more than one person, she's probably also planning for the future -- when you leave ultimately, someone will need to understand your work so that others in the group can build on it (this is a plus for you, in that you'll hopefully get citations).

There's absolutely no mileage in being melodramatic or defensive about your work. If someone were trying to take credit for stuff you'd done, that would be one thing (and there are ways of dealing with that), but in this case it's nothing of the kind -- you've been asked to mentor a more junior student, and the right way of looking at it is as an opportunity.

This is actually a very interesting optimization problem that can be modeled as two person zero-sum game.  The goal your adviser tries to optimize is to create redundancy so that if you get hit by a car tomorrow, the research doesn't go away with you.  This is the same goal of many commercial organizations, everyone should be dispensable so that there is no single weakest link.

Of course, your goal is to monopolize value so that you can increase your academic reputation and be a well-known expert in the field.

Hence a clear trade-off is formed.

Your best action should be to publish as many papers as you can and share different pieces with different partners so that no one person can recreate what you know.  This is what is called split knowledge in cryptography.


Is it OK to have a PhD thesis with shortcomings and inaccuracies? I recently defended my PhD thesis and was awarded a pass with some minor corrections. I am due to submit the final version of my thesis very soon.

The examiners were both very happy with my thesis, which explains the final verdict. However, as the saying goes, no one understands a thesis better than its author, as the person was invested in it for years. When polishing the papers to send for publication, my supervisor and I found a major issue with the thesis, which although it does not invalidate the overall findings, it would change a significant portion of the methodology in my thesis. While I am currently addressing these issues for the publication of one of the chapters, as well as my job market paper, this issue has to led to severe depression and has made me feel inadequate as a researcher. I worked incredibly hard and had a particularly difficult PhD process; so it is difficult for me to find that at this stage (post defense) I am submitting a thesis that is predicated on a methodology that should have been approached entirely differently; and frankly while in my corrections, I have in essence remedied the problem so that it fits my analysis, changing it as I had intended it to would imply changing a substantial portion of the thesis. This in turn has caused a feeling of despair and inadequacy.

I spoke to a friend who is currently working as an associate professor and he comforted me by saying that irreproducibility, inaccuracies, and mistakes, be it major or minor are very common in vast majority of PhD theses and that I should not beat myself up for this and that the said PhD title is well deserved. However, I thought I ask for some second opinion.

The thesis is a "good" one if you have passed and will be awarded your degree. Don't overthink it. You have learned something from producing it that you can leverage into future work. That is, in lots of ways, a big advantage. If your advisor is also happy and wants to work with you on any future extension, you have a positive outcome, if not a perfect one.

That the thesis "might have been better, if only..." is true pretty frequently.

My suggestion is to take the advice of the reviewers and get done. Then write a future paper extending and improving on the thesis. Don't make it harder than it needs to be. Your dissertation shouldn't be thought of as your life's best work, only its first.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (apologies to Voltaire)

If you kept correcting everything you found wrong in your thesis you would literally be revising it for the rest of your life.


Dispute grade penalty for reading in class? I am in an large, entry level course targeted at engineers. A few weeks ago, I was reading for another class while my professor covered material I was familiar with, and she marked me down as absent for at least one and maybe two classes. She has a strict attendance policy so that she gives a 5 percent penalty for missing three or more classes, and I already have three marked absences.

The only relevant section in the syllabus says, "Good manners provide the foundation for proper classroom behavior: arrive on time, listen attentively and take detailed notes, remain quietly in your seat until dismissed by the instructor." There is a strict no-screen policy, but nothing about reading.

I am considering taking it up the ladder and arguing that she should have asked me to put the book away if she wanted me to, as I spoke to her multiple times between the time of the alleged offense and becoming aware that she had penalized me for it. Do I have a good chance of a grade appeal? on merit? statistically?

She is a teaching only professor, so I assume she doesn't have huge sway in the department. It is a ginormous class at a large school though, so I probably don't either.

The only relevant section in the syllabus says, "Good manners provide the foundation for proper classroom behavior: arrive on time, listen attentively and take detailed notes, remain quietly in your seat until dismissed by the instructor." There is a strict no-screen policy, but nothing about reading.

I am pretty sure that all department chairs would agree with a faculty member who concluded that reading in class is the opposite of listen attentively and take detailed notes. I would put your chances at exactly zero that the chair would override the decision to not credit you with attendance on that day, but marking you as absent for two days does not seem justified unless there is another penalty for not following proper classroom behavior.

Your entry level engineering course does have attendance requirements. Those rules were stated before you took the course. It does not matter whether you think the rules are silly or whether you think like I do that such rules are for children.

Do not take it further. It just turns up to the course. Going by what you have stated the professor is a bit precious which makes this likely to backfire on you. Maybe your so-called precious professor does not make the attendance rules either. Why should you expect her to say that you were there when you were not with the program? What if there were some safety aspects that students had to learn? These days with more internal assessment there is a greater correlation between being bad in class and getting bad grades.


A colleague's CV is taking credit for service that I did, and now we're both on the shortlist for a job. Is there anything that I can do? A few years ago I undertook the position of co-editor as a journal and organized a redesign of the entire journal: new layout, new cover, new typesetting, new printers, everything. I'm very proud of all of this work, and I make sure to bring it up in cover letters and interviews.

I learned about a year ago that my fellow co-editor lists on their CV that they redesigned the journal. (Note: they didn't even claim that they organized it, which would also be false, but that they did the redesigning, so it's plagiarism of the designers and typesetters, too.) But this is unequivocally false; they had precisely zero contact with our new designer, our new typesetters, or our new printers. I'm not even sure this individual knows what articles we published in the volumes for which they were co-editor.

Despite my frustrations with what I felt was outright plagiarism of my career, I ignored it. But I've recently learned that this person and myself are on the shortlist for the same job.

In my eyes, I'm in a lose/lose situation:

When two CVs say that a person was responsible for something, obviously at least one person is fudging the truth. I worry that my colleague's CV calls my own honesty and integrity into question.
But I can't really go speak to anyone about this, can I? It seems like I would just come across as trying to tattle or get a leg up in the job search.

Is there anyone I can contact, or any way to approach this in a safe way?

I would just ignore it.  I doubt that anyone will even notice unless they look at the two CVs side-by-side, and even then, they will probably just assume that the two of you worked on the redesign together.  They wouldn't doubt your honesty (nor the other editor's).  So I don't think this really disadvantages you.

It might be a slight unfair advantage for the other editor, but I think it's minuscule.  In hiring decisions, things like professional service get a very low weight.  The fact that you were an editor is perhaps somewhat helpful, if the journal is recognized as publishing good research, but what you actually did as editor is too minor a point.  The fact that you can redesign a journal may speak to your graphic design skills, but academic jobs don't care about that - they care about your research and teaching (in some combination).  In fact, I'm not sure it is wise to emphasize it in application materials or interviews - people might think that tinkering with your journal could be a distraction from actually doing research.

If the topic of the redesign comes up at the interview, just describe honestly what you did.  You don't need to get into what your co-editor did or didn't do.

I doubt that you will be asked specifically about the fact that both of you are claiming credit (for one thing, it would reveal that the other editor is also a candidate for the job, which would normally not be shared with other candidates).  But if so, I would say something like "As co-editors, we share the responsibility for what happens to the journal on our watch.  But on this particular project, I took the lead."

These days lots of unscruplous actors fish CVs off the internet for all kinds of purposes, most probably various business models for example to isolate and make people more desperate so employers can get them for cheaper. Make really really sure before taking any action at all that the source for that CV is really who you are afraid it might be. Because it might well be an attempt by third actor to undermine your network and your confidence.


Is it OK to send email to conference chairs asking for resubmission of the manuscript? I have submitted a messy manuscript to a conference due to the urgent deadline.
After a period of revision, I corrected some mistakes and tidied the manuscript.
Is it okay to send an email to the conference chair or somebody else asking to resubmit the manuscript? Or are there any other ways to resubmit?

I might have a slightly different take than @PsySp in his answer on this issue, but I think fundamentally we agree.

In my view, it's probably fair to email and ask the chair whether you can submit an updated version. But it's also fair for the chair to say no: like @PsySp says, deadlines exist for a reason and you can't assume that you're exempt from them. Get your house in order and build your paper in publishable form before the deadline comes up.

Depends on how the submission system works and what your goal is. If it hasn't been long since the official deadline, there's a chance that the review process has not started yet, and the submission is still open. If you upload your manuscript via some website, you should just try and see if it allows you to upload a new version. I'm also sure nothing bad will happen if you ask the organizers if they would allow to submit a new version, again, assuming that you're just a few days late.

Now, if you're worried that your messy manuscript will be published somewhere, then you should not. In this case, you'll normally get a chance to prepare a new version.


Why don't most academic conferences make their budget publicly available? I wonder why most academic conferences don't make their budget publicly available.

Making budgets publicly available could help explain high conference fees (which attendees often complain about), help other conference organizers, receive feedback to be able to improve, improve transparency towards the taxpayers since they fund most of academic research, explicitly mention what the private sponsors are and to what extent they are involved (e.g. to detect conflict of interests), etc.

I don't think there's any universal policy behind this.  One reason is lack of interest: in many cases I'd bet nobody involved has thought much about the issue, the world isn't clamoring for the budget, and publicly releasing it would take at least a little work.  Inertia is a common reason for not doing things.

Another reason is to avoid arguments.  The main thing people would do with a publicly available budget is criticize it.  Some criticisms would be based on ignorance of the options and constraints, while others would amount to saying "more should be spent on my favorite things, and less on the things I don't care about" (which is not so useful if there's no consensus as to which aspects are more valuable).  E.g., is money for snacks essential or wasteful?  What if they are overpriced hotel snacks, but there's no other option without moving to a venue that is worse overall?  What about a reception with alcohol?  Basically, imagine repeating every discussion the organizers had about the budget, but with an unmanageably large group arguing, and with random trolls from the internet chiming in.

In general, I would assume it's not an attempt to preserve secrets or disguise unpopular spending.  If the conference is funded by a grant, then the funding agency saw a budget.  If it's funded by registration fees, then participants at least know how large those fees are and can compare them with other conferences.

Game Theory Answer v.0.1

Suppose that two rival groups, the Mathematician's Guild Of Firenze ("a") and the Firenze Guild of Mathematicians ("b") both get granted some money and use of a building to hold a conference on game theory mathematics.  Each wants to attract Da Vinci to their conference and each wants to ruin the other, as this town is too small to have enough funding for two rival guilds doing much the same mathematics as one another.

Now if (a) publish their budget in full then (b) can calculate how much money they need to borrow to decorate the conference hall with paintings by Michaelangelo, provide lavish conference food, and any other comparable nonsense thought likely to make their conference more popular and ruin the other lot.  Alternatively, (b) can publish their budget with enough exaggerations in it to provoke (a) to outspend the published budget with borrowed money and ruin themselves.

Personaly, I prefer the approach taken by Da Vinci, which was to lock himself in his room, write everything backwards just in case, and stay away from the likes of a and b.