text:
Why questions about race is on topic, but about LGBTQ not?
Latino is not even race, Is this statistic about how many Latinos/Hispanics have a PhD in the USA correct?
and it was only referenced via social media,
my question Is there any relible evidence of underrepresentation of LGBTQ scientists in STEM fields?
even after referencing Nature and New Your time is off topic?
Is there some issue with LGBTQ on this part of SE?
P.S.
in my opinion the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of Transportation),
are not part of Academia

@Nicole Hamilton, Buffy, user3209815

Hmmm... - most of the places listed in your PS hire quite a number of people from academia, and interact closely with academia at conferences, on journal boards, and through research collaborations. Excluding them seems a bit misplaced. For the hold, I would consider paring down the question (note that your quote is tangential at best to the question, and frankly laughable in my experience - I've known many STEM people who are extraordinary musicians. Math and music seem particularly entwined).

@JonCuster are you telling me that those federal agencies are part of academia and they represent how work and organization is done in academia?

All PhDs, whether at a university, government lab, or government agency, all come from the same pool of people, all of whom have been through academia and all of whom keep interacting with each other throughout their careers. Further, you seem to be trying to argue that, say, the NSF is not intimately connected with academia. Good luck with that!

@JonCuster again I dont understand how is that relating to academia?

I can think of dozens of questions about LGBTQ issues here. Your assertion that this is considered off topic is simply wrong.
Further, the question about underrepresentation in STEM is a question for the main site, not the meta.

I will cede that the issue is somewhat light on tags, though

But I put it on main.

@Stefan  Ignore the "off-topic"  close reason.  It looks more like it was closed because people couldn't understand what you were asking.  The system to put questions on hold leaves much to be desired.  I think the comments your question elicited pretty much describe the situation.

how to reopen is there any mechanism?

After some thought, I think that there is a core issue here that Academia should be interested in. That issue closely parallels concerns about under representation of (females, Hispanics, ...) in higher education, either as students or faculty. I would say that, having run a few journal queries, that the topic of LGBTQ demographics in academia is pretty new, and in general the topic of LGBTQ in overall society is still pretty new (consider the wide range of various estimates for simply the number of LGBTQ individuals in the general population).
However, the question as asked contains various elements that made it possible to vote as unclear or off-topic. These included

That "people in STEM tend to be more feminine"
The whole second half of the question about hiding piano playing
A fairly aggressive tone insisting on 'academia' relevance and ignoring comments asking to clarify things.
(I'll note in passing that the linked Nature item is a commentary, not a technical article)

So, given that, I would suggest that a simpler, broader question on LGBTQ in academia would still be appropriate. One more focused on what do we know now about LGBTQ demographics at least through undergrad -> faculty (actual data). A second question might revolve around what, if anything, is out there pointing to acceptance of LGBTQ in academia (perhaps focused just on faculty, may differentiate based on area).

I would like to clarify something, I expressed my personal opinion, but I put it clearly that it is just opinion. and I asked if people have sources that indeed STEM academia is homophobic, please let me know for such reaserch, I find STEM more accepting towards LGBT then Arts. but again that is my opinion, the piano quote is from popular litterature that claims how possition is very very tense. Which again, never in my short lifetime I experienced.

I didnt understand any comment in that question :( i tried to see again, but I dont see how is related to close vote?

@Stefan In reading your question I got the impression that you were on a bit of a poorly-disguised rant against LGBTQ folk, especially phrases like "so called" that are often used to discredit claims of under-representation. If this was your intent, your attitude is unlikely to be welcome here. If this was not your intent, you should read carefully the suggestions JonCuster makes here, edit your post to remove that content, and request a reopen. I agree fully that it is a relevant question to this stack if that is removed.

As Scott pointed out above, the specific close reason is not that helpful; it only shows the plurality reason that close voters gave - it may be that most of the votes came for other specific reasons. This is a known issue with close vote reasons in SE as a whole. You should pay more attention to the feedback you are getting here on meta rather than the specific wording of the close vote.

@Stefan - the piano quote, I think, detracts from the core question. In my (likely longer it seems) experience in STEM the anecdote rings patently false. One institute where I worked arranged a trip to Paris for everyone to hear one of our grad students play in an orchestra putting on one of Bach's Passions in Notre Dame - nobody would have batted an eye at somebody playing the piano (other than asking them to join a trio or whatnot). So: focus on the core question.

@BryanKrause NO!!! I am LGBT no intention, I just wanted to point out that STEM filed is most openminded, how can you do science if you are not?

@jona Custer, comment on Piano was made by famoust matematician who works in academia and is part of LGBT. I think it is relevant bcs it depict one feelings toward academia, and connect not haveing hobby to heteronormative

@Stefan - I get it, you really like that quote. It is an anecdote that reveals that LGBTQ people can have negative interactions in many different ways. But, it is not the data you are looking for.

Here is a possible edit, incorporating comments from both the main question and this question, that might help clarify your point and address concerns about the question. I'm not going to just make the edit because there's only one chance at getting put into the post-edit re-open queue, but please feel free to adopt any of it that you think is useful.
Note that I did add the second footnote wholesale, to address questions about "what does representative mean?" Of course you are free to edit or ignore that bit (or any other part of the suggested rewrite) if it doesn't match your intent.
What the edited question would look like:
According to the Nature article "LGBTQ scientists are still left out"
there are some "heteronormative assumptions" in the STEM field which artificially suppress the number of LGBTQ people in the field. This view of the sciences1 doesn't match my own experience and anecdotal evidence. (I have seen evidence of a sexism issue but it is a separate issue from LGBT.) In my (admittedly subjective) experience, people in STEM tend to be more open-minded than any other profession.
The Nature article cites a few studies, but none seems to be directly on-point (one study focused on government workers rather than scientists in academia-proper, and another had results that were not statistically significant and whose authors admitted they had made mistakes). Again maybe I'm wrong, but I would like to see a more relevant peer review study (gender studies or social science) explaining this problem.
**What robust studies exist on the representation of LGBTQ individuals2 in STEM fields within academia?

1 The idea that STEM fields are especially constrained comes up in other contexts, too. For example, according to an opinion piece by Manil Suri published in the New York Times, in science it is also not appropriate to talk about hobbies.
Manil Suri is a famous scholar, his description of the situation in academia is worrying, and gives the impression that behavior is constrained and under close scrutiny.

Being too expressive of personal identity can be viewed as running counter to scientific neutrality. In competitive venues, where complete immersion in one’s field might be the promoted ideal, the mention of an extracurricular pursuit can even be seized upon as a lack of commitment. I remember a young mathematician at a prestigious research institute sharing his love for piano playing after hearing I wrote fiction. “Don’t tell anyone in my department I own a piano,” he requested in the next breath.

This is a shock to me because I perceived the STEM field as most openminded.
2Representation could measure the percentage of LGBTQ faculty in STEM fields in comparison to other academic disciplines, or something like dropout rates for LGBTQ students in STEM fields compared to dropout rates for other students.

thank you. Done.


text:
My reason to quit
I closed my account and it will be effectuated within 24 hours. I received an indirect personal attack on my posts. I also do not like how quickly sincere questions of (new) participants are downvoted or labelled as a duplicate because a couple of years ago a similar question was asked. These responses are mostly targeted at questions that criticise (or question) current practices in science.
Current practices work for those affiliated to established research groups. Current practises do not work for minorities like me, and practising science comes at high personal costs.
For those personally criticising or downvoting participants who have the courage to raise their voice, I would like you to ask yourself the following questions first:
•   I am working in an established research group?
•   Does my group’s or supervisor’s reputation benefits how my work is received?
I really hope, one day you will experience the joy of being generous, the joy of lifting those in your circle of influence. Yes, science works for you but that does not devaluate the experience of others.
I also hope, some day you will understand that we all go to processes in which we search for how relate ourselves to experiences and circumstances. Do not judge too quickly. This is a necessity for human growth.
I especially want to thank some participants. @Allure for your honesty and ongoing search for truth and improvement. @Buffy for your quest for humanity. You have to reach a certain level of experience to practise such wisdom. I am not there yet but I promise I will shepherd those in my care. @Scientist for your brutal honesty, courage and believe in righteousness. Science needs people like you. I will remember your response: “do not fear (…).” . @user3209815 for your sincere response to one of my questions, which many would see as a rant.
Finally, I want to thank all the other community members who lifted me up or provided useful feedback. May your lives and careers prosper.

This will almost certainly be closed and deleted, but before it is, I'd ask you to reconsider. While I may not always agree, I've found your posts thought provoking, which is something we all need. I've attracted some "extreme dislike" here and been called vile names - posts removed, of course. You might ping me in the chatroom if you want to chat about this.

Any post that you feel is inappropriate, especially attacks should be flagged. The moderators can intervene though they tend to be permissive here, I think, compared to other SE sites.

Come visit https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/2496/the-ivory-tower, the main chat room.

@Alice To draw more attention to your question, maybe change the title to "Why I've closed my academia.stackexchange account and what you should do about it" or something similar.

Although I do think we can do better with (new) participants, any participant that asks a duplicate question is devaluing the usefulness of this site, because information is then distributed, rather than centralised. But perhaps you have a different perspective? Regarding trolling/attacking users, I completely agree, I have experienced it myself. I wish you all the best for the future.

It may not be your aim to explain your experience and reasoning with this particular post, but just in case it is: I, as someone who has little involvement with the community or individual participants, lack a lot of context and therefore hardly understand what's wrong, in your perception, and how one could improve. In other words, your post may not be "accessible" to a wider audience here, but if that's not your intention, then that's fine too as far as I'm concerned.

But if there are trolls here, don't let them win by chasing you away making the average contribution worse.

@Buffy I am either not controversial enough or the site has gone badly downhill since I was really active around here (multiple years ago by now), because I literally can't remember more than 2 or 3 instances of people actively being rude to me despite posting multiple times a day.

@xLeitix, I think it is pretty rare. A few newcomers in their first days haven't yet absorbed the culture and say inappropriate things. Once the trolls learn they can't troll they are likely to go elsewhere or else clean up their comments. But on some topics like copyright people can get pretty hot. But if you never get down voted you aren't working hard enough. :) I sometimes give answers that, while likely correct, say things people just don't want to accept. They want to bend the world to their will.

I don't know what the personal attack was, but I noticed that the person who made it apologized and deleted the comment (assuming it was the one you described as such in a comment).

I'd also add that some of the struggles that are themes in your questions and answers about problems in science particularly around peer review are not exclusive to you, nor has it been my perception that this stack has much of a bias in favor of the status quo - if anything it seems to be the opposite. It seems like you are having some personal issues with academia as a whole, and yet you talk of publishing 3 papers during your PhD - many people would see that as highly successful, so I think it's worth taking a careful look at where your dissatisfaction is arising.

Yes dupe questions are not 'bad' at all, in fact SE encourages dupes to live - they enhance accessibility to the original question. There's a meta post somewhere on SE meta main.

If you wish to discuss specific events/questions, please start with providing a link to them and explaining what you think is wrong with them. For instance "my question was marked as duplicate because a couple of years ago a similar question was asked" seems like things working as intended, to me.

One observation; I think this shows how many of the frequent accusations of unwelcoming behavior (throughout all the stack exchanges) are not driven by explicitly rude comments, but by how the SE process itself (up/downvoting, closing dups, enforcing topic guidelines, etc.) can often SEEM like an attack on the poster's value.

@kbelder Not only that, but the system doesn't notify you (for some godforsaken reason) when your question is closed or marked as a duplicate or whatever, and you aren't told what it means or how to fix it, so a lot of users get their question closed unknowingly, they don't get any responses, and if they check in later, their question is locked and they don't understand how to fix it. When was the last time a new user had their question closed and they fixed it and got it reopened? Plus, no one goes back and checks on things they voted against

I only saw this now. A pity, because as it is I don't even get the chance see this user's ancient name. I do agree that there is resistance against status quo, which is exactly why it exists as a concept. Passive-aggression is the general rule in higher circles, such as in the Academia. I wish this user had made this discussion available prior to deciding to leave. Always put up a fight: fighting is the best of medicines.

The current system is unjust and broken in many ways. But complaining about it on here isn't going to fix that.

@Flyto Maybe that's why he left. He realized there is no use complaining and just wanted to state the reasons so that the people still left maybe understand why some choose to leave. Complaining is not same as explaining.

@Scientist OP's nickname used to be is Alice.

@FranckDernoncourt: Is it possible to search for her questions and answers?

@user3209815, there are some who are insanely obsessed with reps, so they falsely downvote others. It is best to pass no heed to them. Try to grow a thick skin, as it is essential for withstanding hostility in hubs and workplaces.

It's a pity to see you leave, but as somebody who has been around this community (at times more, at times less) for a few years now, I feel you are misjudging the intentions of the community.
Particularly, I am talking about this paragraph:

I also do not like how quickly sincere questions of (new) participants are downvoted or labelled as a duplicate because a couple of years ago a similar question was asked. These responses are mostly targeted at questions that criticise (or question) current practices in science.

The reason why these questions tend to be closed as duplicates isn't that people hate to challenge the status quo (I would wager that the average community member here is significantly more progressive than most of our colleagues), but that we literally had all of these questions before, usually multiple times.
You may respond that some of these questions are important enough that they should be revisited every so often, but that's unfortunately not at all how a Stack Exchange works. Once a question is asked and answered, the topic is done. I would argue that this is primarily what differentiates a Stack Exchange from a forum. I agree that this does not work well for certain types of questions, but those tend to not be overly well-suited for a Stack Exchange in the first place.
You may also respond that the fact that the person asking the question is a minority makes it a different question which should not be closed. This is absolutely a fair comment. If the circumstances of the poster are made clear in the question (ideally already in the title), and these circumstances actually make the situation and likely answers differ from previous questions, I would personally be more than happy to leave a question open or vote for re-opening it. In fact, I would argue that  questions related to problems minorities face in academia are generally handled pretty well. Take, as a recent example, this question about whether not being able to apply for state funding is a problem on the academic job market.
Personal attacks in answers or comments are of course not ok. These can and should be flagged and removed. However, closing a question as duplicate or downvoting a question is not a personal attack, even if you disagree with the closing or voting (not saying that this is what you meant with "indirect personal attacks", but I have seen cases where posters were offended when their question was closed).

Great answer but I disagree with Once a question is asked and answered, the topic is done. If you know something has changed, then a question can be revisited. If you think something has changed you can start a bounty because answers are out of date.

@StrongBad I feel this is the aspect that does not work well, at least here. Can you think of a case where this actually happened, because I certainly can't. To me, the subjective impression is that once a question is asked and answered, the topic is for all practical purposes dead.

@StrongBad "Start a bounty" also has an obvious drawback -- you need to have enough rep to "spend" on the bounty. Perhaps not a consideration if you have 10k+, but if you're a new user on the site who feels an old question is not adequately answered or feels a new take is needed, you're SOL because you're not "rich" enough to endow a bounty. (Or doing so would substantially affect where you are on the privilege track.)

@R.M. I bet we have a fair number of users besides myself who are happy to start bounties for new users. They just need to ask in chat or a comment or someplace that someone will see (which of course is not easy if you are new to the system).

@StrongBad I think a new user won't be aware of this strategy out of inexperience

A community can not have intentions. The creators of a community can have intentions and the users can have intentions or maybe some third. So which do you mean?

@mathreadler The collective behavior of a community might show intentions, which might or might not be known for its induvidual members.

@peterh but that can also be because of a loud/"pro-active" minority of moderators which actually does not reflect the member base particularly well.

@mathreadler Exactly. But I didn't experience too much bad from the Academia SE, at least compared to other top sites. Well, I was once 6-times insulting-flagged for a not enough PC answer to a political post, and this was also boosted with a 1-month suspension of a mod. I had also a brutally nit-picked and downvoted answer which made clear that I am strongly opposing any legalization of drugs (but not this was the essential part). Except these, no one harmed me and my answers have got typically many ups, actually much more than I expected.

You are mainly right, but deleting your account is a bad strategy. With it, you give up all your hard earned privileges. You could use them to make the system better.
Between the SE sites, the Academia SE seems to me mainly friendly, except some... sensitive, mainly political topic.
It is the internet. Here people can anonymously give, what they want to, without any too serious retorsion. It doesn't have always the best effect.
The best what you could do, in my opinion, would be that you don't delete your account, but silently become inactive. On this way, you could have the possibility to once go back and start to fix.
Furthermore, after so many work, it would be better if you wouldn't deattach it from your name in a sudden upset. I would suggest, think a week and go away only if you think the same after cooling down.
Having more than 2000 rep, you are only from steps away from the last really useful privilege, you could cast close and reopen votes. The real influence of the users with much higher reputation is not much bigger. With these votes, you would have some saying to move the whole system into a better direction, if you are unsatisfied with it.

No he probably can't. If it is obvious to him that some people are there just to make the place toxic... In that case the best strategy can simply be to just gtfo.

@mathreadler It depends on, what he wants. I believe that making the world a better place deserves some effort from our side, even if there is no visible reward.

Yes of course, to some extent. But one also has to pick where and when to try to do that as one usually does not have unlimited energy and time.

"Between the SE sites, the Academia SE seems to me mainly friendly" <- Really? After SO, this is the second most cut-throat site in my experience. And at least at SO they can justify their criticism on technical merit even if it is derisive. "except some... sensitive, mainly political topic" <- Issues involving a large group of people are inherently political, and many (most?) questions fit this criterion at least somewhat IMHO. "You could use them to make the system better." <- Barely.

@einpoklum Your top sites are imho friendly. My top sites (SO, PSE, SF, MathSE) are hostile (or at least they were as I was there active). Behind the political psychopathy I see the political psychopathy of the whole western civilization, which started around in 1968 and became particularly asphyfixicating in the last decades. I use euphemisms to avoid the insulting flags, and I live with the downs together. In general, euphemisms help a lot to deal with the psychos, while you don't need to change the essential meaning of your posts. On the SO I typically don't get technical critics (or if I

@einpoklum get, I fix them), my posts are simply voted down (example), to close and so on. I experience also often revenge downs after I criticize them on the meta sites. PSE doesn't do revenge downs, there is only a generally super-hostile atmosphere on the meta. Academia SE didn't do any of these (although I was not ever very active here).

What you describe is a common phenomeon here (and even worse on many other SE sites - I myself experienced it under a different account). You may not know me but I liked your questions and answers. I wish you all the best!
(I do not know if I am allowed to say this here, but "AskAcademia" on Reddit is a very good resource - in my opinion, the quality is not as high as here (in this regard, Stack Exchange is really extraordinarily great) but the atmosphere is really, really welcoming and friendly which makes up for this.)
Thank you!

It unfortunately took me too long to find this discussion: user93911 has already committed 'digital suicide' by now.
I have a few comments that might help others in a similar situation, or even our dear ex-user93911 reading this from another plane of existence.
(i) I always say that one should be ready to quit in order to feel stronger. Being ready to leave makes you ruthless: never leave without a good fight. Fighting makes you feel swell, and helps improving the world. When you think you've brought out all you could and you loose interest, then you may leave holding your chin up -- however, usually you will find that your enemies are cowards and that there is still more war to be fought. On the other hand leaving suicide notes intended to bring tears will instead bring out the laughter of your aggressors and further lower local standards. Fighting in social & business circles cannot kill you, whilst depression will.
(ii) As someone said, you left at the brink of exerting the power of voting for closing/keeping/editing posts. All your issues could vanish just with a tad more patience. This is how life works. I have just now voted to keep this post open, while writing my answer!..
(iii) Modern Academia is unfortunately full of opportunistic gamblers and abusers, worldwide. I have probably seen the worst of them. Don't lower your gaze: look at them straight in the eye. So many colleagues believe in playing sheep and goose to succeed in the field, out of cowardice and brainwash. This is making the weak oppressors stronger with little effort -- any veiled threat and all of their wishes are granted. They are not many, but they may look powerful and confident. Experience though will show they are scared to the bone inside, all too aware of their incompetence. This is why any opposers and potential rivals are quick to be targeted with passive-aggressiveness, cold treatment, lies, scooping. These guys are desperate! Listen, don't give them a good time: resist, don't play minion. They won't stop using you and everyone else. Play smart, see through the lies, sabotage their goals (usually petty and in the short-term). And the most important: never leave a good colleague alone. If someone asks you for help, help them in whatever way you can.
Anyway, this is getting too long. Hopefully this user will come back, stronger. I will proceed with sapping some bad guys. You know where to find me, here. You might find me in the real world as well, next door.
Fight the good fight!

It's difficult to look them straight in the eye once your fixed-term employment expires....

If it is easy, it means you’re not from fighting.

A few thoughts about this:

This is Academia SE, which means it's read mostly by academics. Academics as a demographic have certain characteristics, e.g. they're liberal as opposed to conservative, they think their profession should be paid more, etc. So if anyone expresses a contrary view, they can expect to be downvoted.
Ultimately, answering questions on Stack Exchange is a recreational activity. I do it because I find it fun, and I suspect most others think the same way as well. It's not appropriate to dictate what others should or should not find fun. So I think questions such as this one should not be closed. The 19k views and 10 answers indicate people find the question fun. Besides the stated close reason is "unclear what you are asking", which is ironic because at least ten people do understand what the question is asking. That's not to say that no question should be closed, but I do think we should err on the side of leaving questions open, especially if they've attracted lots of views and / or answers.
About marking as duplicate: I personally don't think it's a problem because if it's indeed a duplicate then the question suddenly has multiple answers already. Still, unless the question is an exact duplicate (not common), to actually close the original question seems rather unnecessary.
Personal attacks are unfortunate and it's very possible that one person finds something offensive while others can't see what the problem is at all (example). It's a pity we don't have an ignore option.
Downvotes are sometimes necessary but bad. To go from 0 to -1 is significantly worse psychologically than going from +10 to +9, even though in both cases it's just one downvote. So I've been upvoting things if they're negative just to get them back to at least zero. It's a good thing that it takes rep to downvote (I'd even increase the amount required), and a single upvote outweighs multiple downvotes.

In the end everyone has a right to their own happiness, so if you find you no longer enjoy participating here, you should absolutely leave. Best wishes!

A side comment on your last point: there is also a "mob effect" (not sure what to call it) on votes: most people are sheep, meaning they merely follow the lead. From my experience here and elsewhere, from the moment you are the only one in a thread with a -1, you should expect more to come. Also top answers seem to be automatically upvoted, so they keep climbing up the rankings. If you manage to stay on top of the thread for long enough in a highly-popular post, you will earn a lot of reputation with minimal effort. BTW I have upvoted here: you had the -1.

+1, when I encountered this answer, it also was -1.  @Scientist is all over it.

I completely agree with you. I feel like all my questions are automatically down voted. I also hate that questions are marked as duplicates. Everyone's situation is different and these people are reaching out for help online, because maybe they don't have anyone else their life to ask. They want professional help from others in academia. Even if it's duplicate maybe you would help someone by answering and their situation is probably different. I understand if it's duplicate and the question is something that does not change through time, like for example "how can I get into grad school?" but the majority of people who are new are reaching out and asking for help for something they probably couldn't find answers for online easily.
I don't understand this negative energy people have here.
This place has the opportunity to be a ask and answer platform that can help new graduate students or in general everyone in a academia and instead the people who are ancient here spend all their time trying to get more points by editing other new user's questions, marking duplicates that are probably not duplicates exactly, and belitting others.

If you want and need professional help (in the sense that some professional counsellor gives you advice tailored to your individual situation), consult a counsellor who is willing to spend hours to assess your individual situation in an interactive back and forth and ideally is familiar with the mechanisms of your institution. This site is not a good place for this. All we can do is help you to help yourself by showing you new perspectives to look at your situation or similar. So, yes, every situation is different, but if those differences matter, we are not the right place to ask.

The reason why duplicate questions are frowned upon is it because it makes it harder to find and curate good answers, which is the mission of SE. We are not a bulletin board-style or Reddit-style forum and the goals are different. If there are already good answers for a question, the user should be pointed to the page where the answers already are.

Furthermore, reputation for experienced users is earned by asking and answering questions, not for edits or marking duplicates. We are not here to harass new users.  And also note that the up- and downvotes on Meta work differently. It's a statement of agreement or disagreement rather than a vote of quality.

If that is the case then I guess I'll delete my account too. There is no point in having an account on a website that just points you to similar questions from ten years ago every time you ask a question. If it can't adapt and grow over time and the same old people keep censoring everything with so many rules then what is the point of having an account. It would be great if there was a place new recent grad student could ask for help and advice and reach a larger online community for help instead of talking to some one specific counselor who has only one opinion.

There are just so many rules here. You can't post a question without someone pointing you to 10 pages of rules, regulations, and formatting. It will take someone new so many months to get used to it. It's not worth the effort, especially if users just point you to older questions from years ago. We can't just have one version of a question, it's too narrow of a view.

What you’re looking for—while laudable—isn’t really the intended purpose of Stack Exchange. It’s a curated Q&A site. Good questions should have value to someone visiting the site at a later date and beyond the original poster. You may find that people have already asked similar questions to yours. If there’s a significant difference, then you can mention that as part of your question. But if the differences are minor, why would someone who’s already answered a question here give you a different answer? That’s when we point to duplicates.

I don't know what happened, and I'll offer no advice on whether to delete your account or not. Judging by what you wrote about minorities, I probably disagree with you on a lot of issues. However, I also strongly agree with what Scientist wrote. The only path to earning the respect of those who actually matter is through fighting injustice, even when the task seems thankless. I strongly, strongly, strongly hope you keep fighting evil even when it's hard and bears no rewards. It's the only good fight there is.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I ask a question about guidance for looking for a PhD?
I have an engineering background but I want to do a Ph.D. in psychology. Can I ask a question about this giving the details?

There are lots of existing questions on "if I have a degree in ____ can I apply for a PhD in _____" - I'd look through those before posting any question of your own. They get pretty dull and uninteresting and usually end up depending a lot on individual factors so many get closed.

"I have background X and want a PhD in Y" questions are both fairly common here, and often get closed because they depend on individual factors we can't know - like how receptive a particular lab or labs would be to someone with that background, etc.
If you want advice, I'd strongly suggest you refine your questions more to things that are specific and that can be answered generally (at least within a field).

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


text:
Why was my question closed to death?
See this: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the UK, particularly for weak or borderline students?
And, compare it with this: How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students?
I am not understanding why the former was closed while the later one bagged 110 votes.
USA and UK are two big and popular higher education destinations with slightly different systems. Both have a good number of followers. For instance USA=>{Switzerland, Canada, China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and so on}, and UK=>{former British colonies and vassals, and compatible with most part of Europe}.
UK is world leader in producing research papers (on the 3rd position after USA and China. But, produces way more as compared to its population size). Also, because of its past empire, it has a large follower, probably larger than the USA in terms of population.
So, What is fundamentally wrong with my question?

If you (or anyone) is interested in writing a comprehensive answer, which might help clarify how this question would be helpful, flag it (or ping a moderator in chat), and we can briefly reopen it to allow you to post a pre written answer.

The highly-rated question you linked was created as a community wiki as a way to close numerous related questions as duplicates, since these types of questions are quite common here. As such, it includes an answer to a question that would ordinarily be far too broad to be accepted.
See this meta discussion.
Had that question not been created as a community wiki question based on a discussion in meta, it would have been closed just like yours.

Exactly. This is not a typical example, but was created to serve a specific need: so that we don't have to answer each "how do I get admitted" question individually. I can see having a similar question for the UK, but that only makes sense if the answers would be substantially different to the US version. I personally don't think this is the case, but I don't know the UK admission system enough to be able to tell.

They probably would be different. The question may be whether it's answerable for the UK, where (at PhD level) such things tend to be decided entirely by individual universities or departments according to their own rules. Perhaps an experienced academic would be able to generalise enough to make it broadly applicable without being so vague as to be useless...

The thing that is fundamentally with your question about the UK is the same thing that is fundamentally wrong with the one about the US. The questions are both too broad and too narrow at the same time. The admissions process in both countries is a huge topic with books and books written about it. At the same time a good answer depends on the individual department and individual student.

I am not understanding why the former was closed while the later one bagged 110 votes.

Your question on the UK was closed for that reason (i.e., not a good fit for the SE system). The one on the US was not closed, most likely, because it was the result of a meta discussion that concluded that the community wanted to make an exception for the US. As for the up votes, my guess is a lot of people found it helpful and some people up voted it simply because it helped solve the problem of the influx of bad admissions questions.
There is nothing special about the US question and we can make another exception. All it would take is a clear demonstration of the problem and how the question would solve that problem. As it stands now we do not get a lot of UK admissions questions. This means that there may not be a problem to be solved.

I don't know about the UK system, but as I gather from the comments below your question, there might not be a sufficiently uniform admission process there, and there may be not specific advice that can be given for weak students.
For instance, if you asked the same question about my country (Italy), I'd have voted to close too, because there are probably as many different admission processes as universities, and the criteria may even change year after year (the admission process for me 20 years ago was completely different from the current one in the same university, and we changed the process at least another couple of times). And I wouldn't have any specific advice to give to a weak student before the application, it would be too late to do anything.

you have to understand that UK is world leader in producing research papers only second to the USA. Also, because of its past empire, it has a large follower, probably larger than the USA in terms of population.

@yahoo.com I understand that, but that has nothing to do with the admission process and doesn't change the fact that there may be not a sufficiently uniform admission process around the country.

@yahoo.com Nitpicking: no, the UK is not "world leader in producing research papers only second to the USA". China is second. (Other charts compiled with different criteria seem to confirm.)

@FedericoPoloni, Okay. My bad! Corrected in the main question.

It's called American exceptionalism.

This doesn't seem to add value and makes no argument that links the referenced question with this idea (which I'm presuming is your opinion).


text:
What is the main goal of academia stackexchange?
I'm deleting my academia stackexchange account so I don't really care if this my last question will be marked as duplicate or off-topic. The reason why I'm asking this question is that I feel the academia stackexhange community right now heavily focused on hierarchy of this forum such as preventing duplicate, off-topics, etc. rather than actually answer the people's questions. I think every-time if someone, whom specially is new in this forum, asks a question a lot of experienced people will rush to the newly posted question in order to edit its content and discuss its relevance and find duplicates when it is applicable. I think this rush created a censorship, which does not allow new users to express their questions or ideas. Furthermore, I believe every question, which is asked by unique person, has some originality even if it shares its topic with other similar questions and I think it's not fair to mark every question as duplicate or off-topic because his/her questioner is not an experienced user in this forum. I know, even this my last question will be marked as duplicate, off-topic and will be closed, on hold, or even deleted. But, I'm happy that I just expressed my ideas and I don't really care if even I don't receive any response because my account will be deleted anyway.

Note that your last question has four of five votes needed to reopen it (i.e., not consider it as a duplicate anymore). Also please note some answers to this question.

My experience is not formed solely based on my personal experience, which I had for my last question. I saw in many other questions, which is asked by new users, despite of originality of the question, people did not answer it or at least not in the satisfactory way, because the question has a little chance to get high views count and high reputation for those who answered this question. That's really sad when some (not all) educated people are thinking about answering questions in this forum as a game to get more reputation or privileges.

I don’t think our users are as motivated by views and reputation as you think. It is just that the things that are interesting to new users are not necessarily what is interesting to longstanding users who have seen many of these questions before.

The goal of Academia.SE (similar to the other stack exchange sites) is to develop a useful Q&A that applies to a broader audience than the individuals asking questions. This is why we close questions that are too specific to a single individual, or mark as duplicates questions that have already been answered.
These approaches filter out the messy individual circumstances and give the best chances for other people to find answers here without having to ask their own question.
Closing a question as duplicate is never an attempt to censor a particular question or questioner, it seeks to point you toward information already here. Additionally, we can't really answer "what should I do?" questions: you have to make your own decisions based on what you value. Your advisor is likely to be a better place to get information when you need to make a particular decision, because they know you and your circumstances better (though even then you may disagree).

I'm sorry you feel that way, and thank you for taking the time to post your experience. Looking over your posts, I'm not sure I understand why you feel that way... your last question (>10k users) was pretty well received and good discussion helped improve the question even more.
There is a well-recognized phenomenon of older users rushing to close questions, but try to view it from their side... many new users post without checking history, and in many cases the answer has already been discussed. This site has been around for over six years at this point, we have quite a body of knowledge built up. Sometimes mistakes happen, but overall it tends to work fairly well.
That said, as you point out, it's not perfect. I'm sorry you're not feeling welcome, and I really would urge you to reconsider your decision. You've only been a member for a few weeks now, but in that short time you've contributed a few pretty interesting questions. Don't let one bad experience ruin that for you.

Thank you for your kind answer! At the beginning, I really liked this forum and I thought it serves research community as a problem solver. But, I think like many other communities the goal of this forum is buried under rush for editing or marking questions as duplicate or off-topic and people don't answer questions, when there is a little chance for getting high reputation or views, which in my opinion it is really sad for adult and educated people to behave like this. I'm not saying all the people here behave in the same way but always bad reputations have more impacts unfortunately...

@MehrdadYousefi Why did you delete the linked question? I have now no chance of evaluating the general context of this situation. That, for me, is a total opportunity-killer of adding a more personal answer.

@Scientist - I just re-opened the question.

Thanks! Now I see and can add an answer. I have personally voted to close this linked question. Clearly a duplicate. Can't see why someone would take some kind of personal offence in being directed to FAQ?.. And I couldn't care less care about reputation (e.g. getting downvoted) as several of my answers demonstrate.

I suspect by the time I post this answer here, you will be gone already. Still, my answer might serve someone else feeling likewise.
I am a regular SE user. I think the main objective of the database is to provide a Q&A search interface for specialists in different fields. Meaning that if one has a problem, there might be a dedicated SE discussion for it, freely available and still open for additional discussion. I follow and participate different topics in SE, and I can say this website has helped me beyond measure.
Now, there is the matter of the main goal of users in SE Academia. I believe your question was meant to highlight a distance between what I wrote in the paragraph above and what users are actually seeking here. You seem believe most users are just selfishly hunting for reputation, and one of their strategies is nitpicking at selected questions what won't bring them any more views or points. My answer here is based on this personal interpretation, and I am afraid you won't be here to reply or edit the question anymore.
I do not seek reputation in SE Academia. My profile is anonymous, and many of my answers oscillate between controversial and unpopular. Perhaps I often state facts and opinions many academics engaged here don't want to see or be seen in public? I don't know, and I don't care. Because my main personal objective here is (in answering) to contribute to colleagues here who seem to need help in situations I may know about, and also (in questioning) learning what colleagues elsewhere think/advise about a certain topic or situation.
I should state I have voted to close one of your questions, linked in another answer here. It seemed and still looks like a duplicate of another, Frequently Asked Question (FAQ). I did not seek to censor you, not understand why anyone would do that on such a trivial question. Being directed to FAQ is a very helpful outcome, as you may find a suitable answer among many other discussed aspects, or else reformulate your question more specifically on a details you still quite don't understand.
I do believe some users may occasionally misuse this platform on occasion, mostly by passive-aggressively attacking others in comments (or even edits) and by downvoting and voting to delete material they personally disagree with without clear technical or objective reasons. This may be interpreted as a form of censorship, and is unfortunately very common everyone in the real world as well. However I do not think this is widespread in SE Academia (and I would say if I did) and I do not think you seem to have been a victim of such situation.

I agree with you again!!! Nothing is more frustrating then literally having a question and being in need of help and the first responses on your account are people editing your original content, and making it something else entirely by changing your tone and diction, and/or people saying your post is irrelevant. It is rare that you will actually get help.
Try to go reddit. I'm thinking of going there when I need help now.

Hi! This looks like a comment, not an answer. I know, rules are a pain, but this is how more structured places work. Try living in Switzerland. Now, on your feelings, I think you can seek help in different places at same time. These are different communities, and I am sure SE has a lot to offer. I've found a lot of help here. And a few scumbags. Good luck!


text:
Disclosing one's field and privacy issues
I've been using academic.stackexchange quite enthusiastically during a rough postdoc devoid of mentorship.  However, since I am a young researcher and since some of the questions I want to ask are rather sensitive, I am careful about what information I disclose, my field being one of them.  My specific field is small, and it wouldn't take much effort to figure out who I am if I disclosed my field on top of the other personal clues I've given in my questions.  I've noticed others doing the same, probably for similar reasons.  However, some would-be-answerers rather aggressively insist that I disclose my field in order to answer my question.  I'm wondering if there is some way around this-- i.e., how to guard my privacy while still offering enough information for an apt answer?
I've already hidden other SE groups that I'm a member of, and changed my username (but I doubt that would deter an eager detective; at some point SE was even storing old usernames publicly, and @ tags to old usernames remain).  I completely understand that practices change from field to field (and even from subfield to subfield). Yet there are real privacy issues at stake.  I'm even considering just deleting questions after I get a satisfying response, but I know that defies the point of SE.
This question is related, but does not deal with privacy.

I'm sorry you think the responses are aggressive. Generally they are trying to tailor an answer to your field or sub-field. There is a lot of variation in norms between fields, countries, etc.

I understand this completely.  I just wish there were an easier way to be specific and also protect my privacy.  After perusing related issues in meta.SE I'm realizing that hasn't been a major component in the development of SE sites.

When people are asking for your field they mean something like "applied math" or "history" rather than your narrow research interest.

It looks like you're using the default avatar, which may be a privacy concern.  Changing it may help.

Deleting a question after you get an answer is only possible if the answer does not have any upvotes. If you delete your question after getting an answer before it gets an upvote, that is a sure way to get a warning for a moderator and an eventual suspension.
The SE system allows you to create unregistered guest accounts and even multiple registered accounts (although you need to create new email addresses) for exactly this reason. All we ask is that if you create multiple accounts (registered or unregistered), is that the accounts never interact (i.e., no voting for yourself or leaving comments from one user on another users posts). The reputation you gain on these accounts will not be linked.

However, some would-be-answerers rather aggressively insist that I disclose my field in order to answer my question. I'm wondering if there is some way around this-- i.e., how to guard my privacy while still offering enough information for an apt answer?

I haven’t checked the comments on your questions specifically, but my general impression of these comments (and my intention when I make them) is to allow us to give you a more helpful or to-the-point answer.
If you accept that we cannot do this or sometimes your question is too broad, I see no problem with you omitting this information.
To pre-emptively avoid these comments, I suggest that you explicitly state an your question that you will not name your field to avoid identifiability.
Note that if you can give a broad hint to your field (STEM, humanities, etc.; experimental, theoretical), this can still be helpful at times.

I've already hidden other SE groups that I'm a member of

Note that this (sadly) does not make you completely unidentifiable.
Everybody who knows where to look can get to your network profile from a hidden account. (But not vice versa.)

@ tags to old usernames remain

As StrongBad already noted, if you want to avoid detection via this, it is legitimate to use a sockpuppet to ask questions.
On this and more legitimate tricks to avoid detection, see this Q&A.

I think you mean "throwaway" (one use account) not "sock puppet" (account which appears to be a different person which you use to respond to your main account).

@NoahSnyder: For whatever it’s worth, the sockpuppet is used for all kinds of secondary accounts on SE. A throwaway account would not necessarily be correct here, since it would be reasonable to re-use the second account for other “private” questions.

SE offers a feature to disassociate your account from a question upon request, as mandated by the CC-BY-SA license it uses. However,

the procedure is rather cumbersome (you need to contact support, and I suppose your query is handled by a human);
it is not guaranteed that all references to your username will disappear: it takes a while for the username to be deleted from the database, and then it will still be present in older data dumps, in the internet archive, etc. Your question has already been linked to your username and to all your other questions on the SE network, and, as the old meme says, one does not simply delete something from the internet.

Hence it is best to post sensitive questions anonymously from the start, if it happens again in future. I agree that the user interface does not make it easy: a "post anonymously" button in the Ask Question page would help.
Now that you have already posted the question, a crude workaround to prevent further information leaks from your future activity on the SE network is: make a new Stack Exchange account and use that in future. I know it feels bad to lose all your reputation, but in the end it's just imaginary internet points.

Unfortunately, dissociating my account from a question and getting a new account do not solve the problem.  The issue is comments made by other people to my username at the time.  I've since contacted admin, who instructed me to flag each comment (thankfully there weren't many) and ask for changes or removal.

The best precaution one can take is to dissociate SE Academia account from outer hints that would give away his identity. Also avoiding disclosing too much of specific details is the safe path.
Nonetheless, you know what? My bet is that in most cases, the fear of being identified is almost complete paranoia. This website has apparently few users per institution, and the most active ones do not seem eager to investigate into other user's private details. Stalking isn't as trivial as it may seem to the common user, and plus, most academics are still unaware of the existence and power of such Q&A websites.
Unless you're really bashing a hot shot in some online-savvy department in the US or UK, I think you have little to fear. In case you work in a non-English speaking institution, you ought to just chill.

Well, if you've been stalked before, your paranoia might be founded.  Also, this website is viewable even by non-users.  It's quite common to reference an SE site without ever making an account.

I was, and I am stalked. I’ve been in the bitter side of internal enquires as a whistleblower. Colleagues will gossip, and that’s it. SE academia is as much open access as many papers I’ve written to nice journals, and Wikipedia entries I’ve created about them. No effect. I guess everyone really is looking at cute cat videos and on instagram. Reality is, most ‘bad guys’ are flat dumb & lazy and usually nobody truly cares about us. Give whoever you think hates you a few months of shunning and you’ll become part of the landscape again. Take minor precautions and chill out.

Do not post questions that put you at risk.


text:
How to save the question "Daughter wants to advocate physician-assisted suicide as her life goal. Shall she be professor?"
Many apologies for Daughter wants to advocate physician-assisted suicide as her life goal. Shall she be professor?. How do I edit it and make it on-topic? Thanks!

There's a legit question about whether/which academic jobs facilitate advocating for social/political change.
For example, advocacy is a terrible fit for most science departments: even departments that don't mind the attention will be vastly more interested in the professor's ability to run a successful research program (i.e., land grants and publish papers). Political science might be an option, but I think most departments focus on how policy decisions are made rather than the policies themselves. I know even less about philosophy/bioethics, but those areas do seem more interested in staking out a position. I think this could probably be fleshed out into a more complete answer with examples, though I don't know enough to do it myself.

I am not sure you can, but your question is pretty unclear so maybe you can. It seems you are looking for recommendations about undergraduate programs to prepare your daughter for something. This is likely off topic. You say you think she wants to be a professor, but I am not sure how that relates to the rest of the question. Even if she wants to be a professor, a question about the best career path for becoming a professor is going to lead to opinion based answers. You should take a look at our help center and familiarize yourself with our community.


text:
After someone moves your comments to chat, you lose the right to delete them. This is unfair. How to regain this right?
After someone moves your comments to chat (without asking you), you lose the right to delete these comments yourself. This is unfair; after all, you've done nothing wrong that would justify losing this right. How do you regain this right?
I mean moving resulting in "Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – StrongBad♦" with a URL to a chat discussion (the name "StrongBad" is just an example here; there is nothing personal here, and my question is general).
When speaking about the right, I mean the right given to you earlier by Stack Exchange (not by the law, a distinction rightfully noticed in Wrzlprmft's answer).

Very generally, once you put something on the Internet, it is very difficult to undo. While some legislations grant you some right to delete your private information or similar, there is no universal right to delete your content.
Specifically, when you post something on Stack Exchange, you do so under a Creative Commons licence. The reason for this is that this site is supposed to be a repository of knowledge and wouldn’t work if people could arbitrarily delete their stuff. You retain a right to have your name disassociated from your posts though (but I presume that this is not your issue). Thus, if you so wish, forfeit the right to delete your content when you post it. You are only granted a certain right of self-deletion so you can clean up after yourself. But:

You cannot delete your questions once they have an upvoted answer. (Also see this FAQ.)
You cannot delete accepted answers.
You cannot delete chat messages older than two minutes. Also see this declined feature request on Meta SE: Allow owner of message to delete them in chat.

Finally in the specific case of comments moved to chat, your comments are already deleted. They continue to exist in another form as chat messages, but then this is the least prominent form of content on Stack Exchange anyway. Also almost everything that has been on the Internet for a certain time persists in some archive. Finally, there usually should be no pressing reason to delete such a message:

If you posted something rude or otherwise bad, you shouldn’t have done so in the first place (and deleting it doesn’t make you less accountable for it).
If you posted something that is now obsolete, there is no shame in that.

There are some rare exceptions, e.g., if your comment contains sensitive information due to some accident or similar. In this case, please flag the original post for moderator attention and specify the message and provide a good reason why it should be deleted.

Can you moderators delete chat messages, too?

Note that, even if you don't have the right to delete them, the Creative Commons license gives you the right to disassociate your name from them (i.e., make them anonymous). I suspect that SE will make the procedure to do it unnecessarily complicated, but it's your right.

@FedericoPoloni: Yes. Going by experience, disassociating posts is not made very complicated. I have never witnessed a request by somebody to disassociate chat messages.

For reference: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remove-my-name-from-a-post-in-accordance-with-cc-by-sa-3-0 . Note that the "contact" link is wrongly named there, that there is no "contact" link at all in chat pages, that in the contact page there is no predefined help topic for "I want to disassociate a post", and that for this reason the request will likely go through a human customer support representative rather than being fully automated. I call this "unnecessarily complicated", when compared to a simple "disassociate" button in a context menu, but that's my view. :)

@FedericoPoloni: Right now, post disassociation is a very rare event. I have encountered only a handful of such requests during years as a mod. Making this user-controlled would require a considerable effort, as you would have to prevent all sorts of accidents and loopholes, such as somebody posting a rude comment and then immediately disassociating it to cover their tracks. This effort is simply not worth it.

I guess that part of the reason why you encountered only few such requests is that the suggested protocol to handle disassociation requests (as described in my link above) does not involve asking a moderator, but contacting SE's customer support.

@FedericoPoloni: I doubt that. I would expect that a considerable portion of users doesn’t care or succeed to find the suggested protocol and just flags the post. Yet, I have never seen this happen. (The disassociation requests I mentioned were all embedded in larger drama.) Also, think about in what circumstances you would reasonably want disassociation of individual posts. In many cases, deleting your account, renaming your user, or using a legitimate second account will get you what you want in an easier and usually cleaner way. Disassociation is by nature exceptional.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a feature that is not advertised, buried in the license, uncommon in other internet forums, and cumbersome to request is a very rare event. I am not sure in which direction the causation arrow goes, though. :)

@FedericoPoloni: PS: I dug a bit, and an SE employee told me that they have roughly one disassociation request per week (for the entirety of SE).


text:
Canonical question about adding unrequested changes during revision
This very recent question:

Is it acceptable to add a result to a paper when a journal asks for revisions?

prompted a short discussion in the comments about it being a duplicate. As I wrote the (only and accepted) answer to

Adding a citation after paper is accepted,

I linked to this while voting to close as a duplicate. The SE meta thread on this matter:
How should duplicate questions be handled?
says

Questions may be duplicates if they have the same (potential) answers

and

Questions asking about the same aspect of the same concept, but with different examples, may or may not be considered duplicates. It depends how easy it is to figure out one example from the other. If it's only a matter of changing some numerical values or some variable names, they're duplicates.

The same situation with marking as a duplicate occured in

Adding new results during review process.

In both questions I voted to close I argued that the "answer there is aplicable to a wide range of instances, particularly to this one" and "that answer covers what is asked about here". However, this triggered comments saying that "adding a new result is pretty different from adding a new citation" and "But the two questions refer to two different situations".
For completeness, my opinion on the matter is that

if you found something that the reviewers didn't ask for, but adding it to the text improves the quality/completeness/etc. of the paper, you definitely should do it. [...] Overall - aim at the highest quality of the article that you can achieve at the moment."

While researching to ask this question, I found these questions asking about very similar things:

Should I add a non-requested work to my major revision of a scientific journal paper?
Can I correct a mistake that the reviewers didn't spot in a paper that has not been accepted yet?

to which I'd answer similarly as above (i.e. with the above quoted excerpts).

Question:
Which one should be the canonical question for marking as duplicates questions asking

"can I add [anything] (e.g. citation/sentence/paragraph/section/plot/table/hypothesis/conjecture/proof/theorem/discussion/hypothesis/etc.) in the revision?"

If no existing thread is general enough, maybe we can edit one accordingly?

The downvotes recently seem to be given very hastily and freely...

I disagree that those two questions are duplicates, at least of each other. Yes, they are related. Yes, they have "the same (potential) answers", and your answer applies to both. However, I think this is because the answers are more general than the questions themselves.
Going back to the SE meta thread, it states (emphasis mine):

Questions asking about the same aspect of the same concept, but with different examples, may or may not be considered duplicates. It depends how easy it is to figure out one example from the other. If it's only a matter of changing some numerical values or some variable names, they're duplicates. If understanding why the questions are at all related requires a detailed explanation, the questions aren't duplicates, merely related.

In my opinion, asking about adding "new results" during revisions, or "citations" after acceptance, amounts to more than a change of variable names - there are nuances involved. It's certainly natural to think that adding new results is a more significant change than adding a citation, and that changes before and after acceptance are rather different.
The point is that the questions are different, even if the answers don't have to be. Yes, they are related, but somewhat different questions about changing a paper, but as Jeff Atwood put it,

One thing I want to be clear about, though, is that duplication is not necessarily bad. Quite the contrary — some duplication is desirable. There’s often benefit to having multiple subtle variants of a question around, as people tend to ask and search using completely different words, and the better our coverage, the better odds people can find the answer they’re looking for. And isn’t that, really, the whole point of this exercise?
Furthermore, it’s OK for duplicate questions to have duplicate answers. While you could argue that the duplicate questions could all be merged into one question with a “master” set of answers, this is kind of irritating from the perspective of the user looking for an answer.

In this case I think a more general catch-all question could work, as it's not a moral equivalent of saying "RTFM". However, if we go that route, I'd prefer seeing two questions, separating the pre- and post-acceptance cases*. I imagine questions like

Can I make modifications to my paper during revision that were not requested by the reviewers?
Can I update my paper after it is accepted?

For 1., either Adding new results during review process or Is it acceptable to add a result to a paper when a journal asks for revisions?
 would be a good starting point. (I prefer the framing to the former, but the answers to the latter.) For 2., editing Adding a citation after paper is accepted to be more general would be fine.

*If I know that I can add a result during revisions, then I can infer that I can add a citation or two during revisions, but I couldn't necessarily infer anything about edits after acceptance.

Thank you for your opinion. That's more or less what I have in mind, but clearly laid out. I find the quotes you give quite convincing. I agree also about separating cases before and after acceptance – for the latter a canonical answer should be "consult the editor", though. For the former, Adding new results during review process seems indeed better phrased, and the answers are concise. In my own answer I refer to in the OP I purposely gave the most general answer that was possible at the moment.


text:
Contesting a duplicate question: non-standard career path and two PhDs
Some time ago, I had a question closed and marked as a duplicate.  I found the experience to be quite bizarre-- the post many claimed answered my question did not, from my view-- I had in fact read that post in detail before deciding to write my own question.  Furthermore, I revised my question multiple times to make the differences clearer.
I wonder if part of the issue is that my question deals with possessing two PhDs at once, the very notion of which seems to trigger many academics.  I suspect that many of the closers did not actually read the question or its revisions in detail, instead defaulting to the "two PhDs is bad/sad/mad" opinion and taking action to close the question.
So my meta-question is: how can I get the "duplicate" notice removed from my question?  Someone already provided a great answer (which I accepted), so I'm not necessarily looking for further attention.  It just feels silly for the "duplicate" marker to remain, as it undermines what I think is a distinct and real issue for many people.

Did you actually vote to close your own question as a duplicate? Or for some other close reason?

I did, out of annoyance. My thought was, enough people got the question to answer it, might as well speed up the judicial hammer and move on.

You were the fourth one to vote. If you did not vote to close, the question could survive. Now, it's hard. Re-opening a question is always much harder. It takes five votes or moderator intervention to reopen .  Next time, please don't vote to close your own question unless you really want it to close.

@scaaahu Considering how close-happy people are on this site, I doubt my question would have remained open.  Furthermore, it seems impossible to get a question re-opened because there aren't many avenues for advertising a "damned" question.  Sure, it'll move to the top of the queue as having been edited recently, but people will still see the duplicate or closed label and move on.

Your question is pretty broad and has a lot of background. I think it really boils down to

I want to know what to expect if I start pursuing a PhD in an unrelated field altogether, given that I have a PhD already. (Something like this post.) Possible considerations that don't have to be precisely answered: could my current PhD be a hindrance in getting accepted into a new program? Will my supervisors and colleagues see my past PhD as an asset, or as weird-looking mole they will try to politely ignore? What are other questions should I ask myself to make sure this is something I really want?

At the highest and broadest level

I want to know what to expect if I start pursuing a PhD in an unrelated field altogether, given that I have a PhD already.

and

What are other questions should I ask myself to make sure this is something I really want?

seem very related to the linked "duplicate" question and do not seem like great fits for the site. In this case the problem with the question being broad is that it overlaps with other things and it becomes difficult to focus on the unique aspects of the question. The rest of the gist seems different from the duplicate question and a much better fit.

Could my current PhD be a hindrance in getting accepted into a new program?

and

Will my supervisors and colleagues see my past PhD as an asset, or as weird-looking mole they will try to politely ignore?

Why not ask those two questions as stand alone and separate questions. Maybe from there you will see a way forward to getting at the deeper aspects of what you want to know.

I'm having a hard time understanding why it's considered so broad, given the range of "acceptable" questions on academia.SE.  The sub-questions are meant to flesh out the main one-- what to expect-- asking them separately would get hyper-focused answers that aren't helpful.

@artificial_moonlet I think it's broad because of the word  "unrelated" you use. Chemistry and Theoretical Computer Science are unrelated in some sense. Material Science and Japanese Study are also unrelated in another sense.

@scaaahu I specify the fields in the question... should the title of the question itself should be burdened with details?

@artificial_moonlet You have "let's say" in the question. I do not take it as you specified the fields. Had you said jumping from STEM to Humanity without "let's say", I think it would be better.

@scaaahu I'm not revealing my actual fields.  But I'm consistent with the two I've stated.

@artificial_moonlet Still, it could be considered a dup. But, the problems you might encounter while applying for admission and studying would be worthwhile asking, imo.

@artificial_moonlet I edited the answer to try and make it clearer is that the issue with your question being broad is that it overlaps other questions and it is difficult to see the unique bits.

I agree it's not a duplicate of the linked question, but I also agree with StrongBad that it's quite broad. If you like, we could change the close reason to "too broad." Given the excellent answers already there, I would not want to substantially rewrite the question at this point (though you're welcome to open a new, more focused question as StrongBad suggests).

I wonder if part of the issue is that my question deals with possessing two PhDs at once, the very notion of which seems to trigger many academics.

Maybe, but I suspect (another) part of the issue is concision: your question is very long and contains a lot of extraneous information. I suspect you could easily reduce the length by 50%. Of course, this shouldn't affect the determination of whether it's a duplicate -- but reviewers are not perfect. It's easy to just read "a bunch of personal factors....two PhDs....yeah, it probably boils down to the same question."

I agree I could trim the narrative-- at the time, some of the context felt important.

Apparently, I'm responsible for initiating the close reason.  I did read the question in detail, but not the revisions that had not happened at the time.  Here is why I voted to close:
Your question was "What should I expect if I do X?"  The correct answer is "Don't do X."  Therefore I consider the question to be a duplicate of "Should I do X?" because they have the same answer.  There's no reason to have both questions on this site.
As edited, your question is primarily opinion based, so I don't feel it should be reopened.
I'm sorry you didn't like our answer to your question.  You are not likely to get a better one elsewhere, because few people have two PhDs, and most of them are not like you.

I have looked at the latest edit, and now it looks like the question comes down to:

The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See this discussion for more info.)

Which is another reason it is not suitable for our format, so I have left it closed also.

I'm actually fine if it stays closed.  But it shouldn't be marked as a duplicate.  Anyway, I just earned the reopen vote privilege and was excited to exercise it. :D


text:
What about directing advice-seeking questions immediately to chat?
The Q&A format of academia.SE is limited when it comes to questions where someone just needs advice or a brief therapy session from a formless elder in the ivory tower.  Yet many people (especially those new to SE and unfamiliar with the format) ask away anyway. Then they either get closed or get a flurry of attention and opinions that are probably not really what they were looking for in the first place.
I've been wondering if there's a better way to process such questions without overwhelming or shutting down a real person in real distress.  Already there are mechanisms that suggest if someone's question might be a duplicate or opinion-based when someone is typing a question.  This is great.  But would it possible to also refer the question-asker to chat?  Such a feature might even help with question qualitiy in the long run, because the question-asker would have a chance to work out the kinks in chat and then, if they still deem it necessary, post a question.
This question is related: Better use of the chat room: Discussion groups proposal?. In fact, I think my proposal would help achieve the OP's goal of utilizing chat more.

I don't know whether the SE staff can implement such request or not (and whether they'd be willing to implement it), but take into account two things: i) to use the chatroom one should have at least 20 rep, and most of the users that are in distress, and have trouble asking questions, are newcomers with 1 rep; ii) our chat is not particularly populated and the chances of getting an answer there may be thin.

I think the current process works to a great extent, i.e. we use comments to tell the OP what to improve and how to improve their questions. SE allows the asker, even 1 rep point to write comment under their own questions. I think this is better than the chat room. If the comment thread is too long, a user can open a chat room or the OP can flag the mod to move the comments into a chat room to continue to chat. As far as I can see, it ain't broken yet, no need to fix.

Also, my personal experience (I actually did the kind of things you suggest) is that  many users got the useful info/solution/suggestions, they just left. Never improve the question, never come back. After a while, the chat room would freeze. No one would read the contents. That's it. After a few such instances, I stopped doing that.

@scaaahu Bummer, but makes sense.


text:
Identifying Universities
I was preparing an ethics question and realized that while I was carefully anonymizing the people involved, I was identifying the universities, etc.
Personally, I believe that knowing the universities and/or locale involved adds context to the situation but might serve to assist someone with 'less than altruistic intentions' in identifying the participants in the dilema.
I also know that while I've only recently joined this community, I have followed many ethics questions in the past through the Hot Network Questions sidebar from other sites. TBH, I don't recall other ethics related question(s) where scholastic institutions were named.
How should I proceed and stay on-topic while accurately describing the situation? An accurate description of the situation involves at least five universities and a couple of countries. I feel that locale is important because the ethical conundrum involves student loans.

See https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1297/929

Thanks @StrongBad. That didn't directly address my issue but it did help provide perspective.

It's a judgment call. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Ask yourself whether an identification of the researchers involved is realistic, and if yes, whether it's worth risking anyway. There are quite a few sui-generis universities in the US alone, so there will be cases where even despite a lack of anonymity you'll want to mention the place.

I recommend sharing the relevant details without naming the schools. For example, instead of "Columbia University," you could say "a prestigious university in a large city in the US with several other nearby universities." I can't imagine any ethical quandary that is so specific it only applies to a single set of universities (and if it does, it is probably not a great fit for this site in any case).
As an aside, questions with many actors and locales are difficult to write cleanly. A lot of questions provide too many details and end up attracting few answers. Even moreso when there are awkward naming conventions ("Professor X in Country Y talked to Professors A and B...."). So, I really recommend boiling it down to the key issues and most important details.

The ethical quandary is directly regarding student loans and the avoidance of repayment. While the particular universities may not be identified, their general location (and governing laws) is a sacrosanct part of the ethical question. Maybe I'm just shortcutting my question's narrative.

including the country, or part of the world, seems reasonable (meant to include that in my example, will update).


text:
Fade out of questions?
Recently I noticed questions on the front page that appear faded out:

What is that supposed to indicate? Is it some new feature and I missed the announcement?

This is because it contains tags that you have marked to be ignored.
More details on meta.stackexchange.com that explain it:

Ignored Tags
...
By default, questions with these tags are shown faded; they are still visible but less prominent. It is possible to hide them completely, for more details see: How do I hide posts matching my ignored tags?

Thanks. I must have marked [tag:application] by accident. I certainly didn't do it intentionally.

Thank you. I had the same problem. You saved my eyes. (I thought I should go see my eye doctor).


text:
If your essay limits 1500 words, can you just reference essay prompt without discussing it, then criticize it?
Apology for If your essay limits 1500 words, can you just reference essay prompt without discussing it, then criticize it?. How can I edit it so it doesn't strongly depend on individual factors?
My question can assist and matter any university student writing essay with word limit!  Thanks.
EDIT
I don't know why my question closed, but these created:2y.. open. Don't these depend individual factors? I want know for future so I don't downvotes and suspended!
Graduate student with abysmal English writing skills, how to help
Colleague blames me for not spotting typos when I only reviewed the structure and content
How to deal with my PhD supervisors rudely critiquing all my draft papers?
How to write papers efficiently when English isn't my first language?
Should I cite a really bad research paper published in my small research area?
How to to deal with advisor's criticism of my writing?
How to improve scientific writing skills?
Advice on writing a research paper in a less time
PhD Advisor is lying about funding and doesn't write their own grants
Which could be considered an appropriate number of self-citations? asked 19 hours ago.

Those questions (at least from the title) appear considerably different as they are about writing publications (not coursework) or are about conflicts with a supervisor (which cannot be answered by the supervisor themselves). Can you argue why any of these questions should be closed as per the FAQ?

The essay prompt should be obviously incorporated (not copied) in your introductory paragraph. 1500 words is roughly 6 double-spaced pages, so there is plenty of room for a good introduction to the question at hand.

@Wrzlprmft I'm not arguing they should be closed. I'm arguing mine is like them and mine can open too. How writing publications differs writing coursework?

I'm not arguing they should be closed. – Well, try to apply the arguments from the FAQ to those questions. If you conclude that they should be closed, [edit] your question to elaborate why and there is something we can explain or discuss. If not, you might understand the rule. But if you do neither, we cannot make any progress, because we do not understand why you fail to see the difference.

How writing publications differs writing coursework? – The criteria for publications are universal (with some minor dependences on field and some dependences on journal). The criteria for essays are made by the instructor.

I'd suggest editing the title of this meta post to actually reflect what the meta post is about, e.g. "My question about referencing an essay prompt was closed for 'strongly depending on individual factors'. How can I edit it to fix this?" Right now, this meta post is just titled identically to the question, which doesn't make it clear what this meta post is actually asking.

You cannot. Your question is a textbook example of the point “Questions on your […] teacher’s preferences” in the respective FAQ. The only person who can answer this question is your instructor. Everything we can provide would be a guess, which may be misleading.
There is no generally valid answer to this question, except: “It depends on your teacher’s preferences and the context.” The close reason in question was made for exactly such questions.

I don't think my question is “Questions on your […] teacher’s preferences”"? My question can be generalized so it doesn't depend on teacher. Obviously if you spend 1500 words just regurgitating author, then you get low mark.

@ParkKiHyun: That wouldn’t solve the problem. Please see my edit.

Thanks again. Please see my edit post?


text:
Where comment? What is the Latin term “pace” used for when referencing other scholars?
citations - What is the Latin term "pace" used for when referencing other scholars? - Academia Stack Exchange

However, I can imagine that some authors simply use pace for variation from "contrary to" without this particular nuance (essentially as suggested in the comments). (As may be clear from my question, this was in the field of linguistics and written by an author with an exceptional sensitivity to the finer nuances of language.)

When I click "suggested in the comments", I don't see comment. Just question. This comment deleted? Can you post it thanks?

The comment did not include any new information. I removed the reference.
In the future, if you see something like this, please just flag it for moderator attention as only moderators can see deleted comments anyway.


text:
Complaint about Academia Stack Exchange
I had a falling-out with a professor last year, and the situation has been quite distressing for me. I'm trying to deal with the situation in real life, but so far I haven't gotten answers, so I was posting about it on Academia Stack Exchange. It was a complex issue; thus, it's not something that can be fully addressed in one post. As such, I've posted various questions relating to the matter; however, they weren't duplicate questions; each had a distinct topic and could be applied to various situations. However, I've been prohibited from posting anything related to it, and I don't feel one can be prohibited from posting about a topic unless that topic is offensive and/or unrelated to the stack exchange. (My issue is directly related to academia.)
Yes, I post about this a lot, but I haven't broken any stack exchange rule, so I wanted to complain about this.

Yours is a rather unique case.

Of your 26 questions, more than 15 reference the same conflict, and 14 had a negative total score.
You have a received a cease-and-desist letter from the institution in question, and the professor in question has replied to your overtures through counsel only.
You have received very clear, unambiguous advice from this forum: leave her alone and move on with your life. You have explicitly stated that you will not take our advice (in which case, why ask for more advice?).
Indeed, your later actions (meeting new professors and asking them to relay messages to her) present a very worrying trend -- both in terms of your mental health and in terms of your legal exposure (neither of which are within our area of expertise).

As for "not breaking any stack exchange rule" -- this forum does not allow duplicate questions. Several users have suggested that many of your questions could be rewritten so as to avoid any reference to the above situation; this would be perfectly allowed. In fact, I explicitly suggested that you do this on one question two months ago, but you chose not to so until a week had passed and the question had been closed and heavily downvoted (perhaps the question could be reopened now, but that is up to the community).

@cag51- I just edited that post to remove the specifics of my situation.

It was a complex issue; thus, it's not something that can be fully
addressed in one post.

Stack Exchange sites are repositories of well-defined and virtually independent questions and answers. They are not a good place to ask a long series of questions connected by a thread, and with little or vague differences from question to question.
Users cannot follow such a long thread, can hardly see the differences between the questions and vote to close, even more so if the questioner doesn't seem to follow the advice given in previous answers and comments.

I don't feel one can be prohibited from posting about a topic unless that topic is offensive and/or unrelated to the stack exchange.

We're sorry for what you're going through, but you have to understand that Academia Stack Exchange is simply not suitable for all types of questions related to the academic world. It's really not meant to be so: there are academic questions we can answer and others we can not. In particular, see also Why was my question put on hold for depending on individual factors?.


text:
Does a user's experience/qualification matter when answering?
I have recently finished my undergraduate degree, and will join a graduate degree in Fall 2021. I have hung around the main site long enough (even before I became a member) that I (kind of) know what questions make sense there1, and I (kind of) know what sort of answers are useful.
This means that when I try and answer questions, it is not always from personal experience or any citable source, but sometimes draws from other answers I have read on the main site (and find useful). Some of my answers may seem as though written by someone way more senior than "just a graduate student", as though I know absolutely everything I'm talking about, but they do usually draw from other answers on the site.
I do this because I can, because I (kind of) know what answers will be given by other, more senior users, based on previous answers I have read. However, I would rather that no one thinks I am "just a graduate student" and have no idea what I'm talking about. Whatever I answer is based either on personal experience or on something I know makes sense, because I've read similar answers before.
For instance, I have answered questions on uploading to arXiv after acceptance and on Mathematics GRE for an engineering course, since I have been through the same problems before. On the other hand, I have also answered questions on whether a Ph.D. student should mail another researcher from his country, on whether a summer project abroad makes sense for graduate studies and on poor undergraduate grades for Ph.D. admissions. These are, in general, much better answered by those in a more senior position with experience of how these things work. I have answered them however, because I can guess what the accepted (or highest voted) answer will say.
Is this okay, and does it make sense to continue doing this or should I defer to someone with actual experience?

1: Meta is a different beast, but I guess I'll find out now.


text:
Voting for just one candidate in Mod election
It does not seem possible to vote for just one candidate in the current election.
How can one do this?

Yes, it’s actually possible, just drag your favourite candidate in the ballot box. What exact issue are you experiencing? Which browser and system are you using?

@MassimoOrtolano It's probably just me. I was expecting some sort of 'submit' button to appear and supposed that it wasn't doing so because I hadn't filled both spaces.

Personally, I would prefer to elect them both!

@Araucaria: It isn’t just you. I too found it confusing that after entering a candidate, or making your rank order list of candidates, there isn’t a “confirm” (or such) button. Not a fan of that aspect of the interface.

Let me start with a general note that is not so relevant to this election, but explains why the interface is how it is: In the STV system employed by SE, you do not vote (strictly speaking) for a candidate, you rank all candidates. If you “refuse” to rank any candidates, this is equivalent to ranking them last. It’s not that you can explicitly not vote for them.
(The guidance to only rank candidates you think would make good moderators is misleading in my opinion.)
In the current scenario – a one-slot election with two candidates –, the votings system boils down to a plain majority election where the candidate who is ranked first by most voters wins.
Thus, the following are equivalent:

Rank Candidate A first and do not rank Candidate B.
Rank Candidate A first and rank Candidate B second.

That being said, you can do the first thing, by dragging and dropping only one candidate in the list. The selection will be automatically saved every five seconds:

The fine print: "It’s not that you can explicitly not vote for them" -- this is true in the current scenario (2 candidates for 1 slot) but not generally. For example, if we had 3 candidates and 2 slots, and everyone voted for Candidate A without providing a second choice. In this case, the election fails with only 1 slot filled. (I'm not sure exactly what happens if B has some support, but not enough to reach the 50% threshold after all the vote transferring is done).

@cag51: If there is a single voter ranking B over C, B will win that seat.

I've thought about this for some time, and my thinking is still the same. Your explanation seems to be not voting for a candidate makes no difference to the outcome of the election, therefore you cannot 'explicitly not vote for them'. My feeling is that this is not true. One cannot 'explicitly' vote for anyone. But what you mean is that it will make no difference to the result of the election. However, it will make a difference to the record. When you cannot affect the outcome of an election, the record counts for something.

It's also worth pointing out that the guidance on voting explicitly states "You should only rank the candidates you think would make good moderators." Either the people who wrote that guidance have a reason for doing so - or they don't understand the way the election works. [However, I'm just making that point. I'm grateful for the explanation of the drag and drop.]

When you cannot affect the outcome of an election, the record counts for something. – If it counts for you, I cannot dissuade you, but mind that all those interpreting the record must also take into account that many voters are aware of how the system works. — Either the people who wrote that guidance have a reason for doing so - or they don't understand the way the election works. – It’s the latter. Actually, all of this prompted this Meta SE question of mine, which I somehow forgot to mention here.

@Wrzlprmft That's a different and very specific scenario where there are two people you don't wish to vote for.

@Araucaria: I am not exactly sure what you are aiming at, but the example I used with two people is only an example. The advice (“You should only rank the candidates you think would make good moderators.”) is generally not sound. As long as you have only one candidate who you consider unacceptable, it is irrelevant, but still incorrect. — two people you don't wish to vote for – That formulation suggests that you are thinking about STV in terms that don’t apply to it, but rather to primitive voting systems.