How do you read, learn from, and assess a textbook?

Personally, outside of the elementary level I find there are very few (single) textbooks that I can read and understand the subject.  I find it very useful (although cumbersome, and oft expensive) to acquire multiple books on the same subject, so I can read sections from each side by side.  A given author may be better most of the time, but there are enough places when self-studying that I get lost that I need to seek additional explanations or examples.

The opinion of the use of the other books I think comes from answering whether it was it useful for me when learning the subject area.


First of all: there should be an Erasmus coordinator in your home institution. He or she will be able to answer these questions in more detail.

I'll try to answer your questions. However, I am not an expert, so please somebody correct me if I got something wrong.

  When an undergraduate student go from his university to a host university, who pays the fee?

I think the Erasmus programme, that is, essentially the European Union. That being said, for you as participant it should make little practical difference who actually pays for your grant in the end.

  How the limits are set? Many students are interested to go to Oxford or Cambridge (generally famous university), but a few wants to go to small universities.

I think you misunderstand how Erasmus works. First of all, your home university needs to have a specific partnership with the host university. If your university does not have a partnership with Oxford, well, then you can't go there via Erasmus. Those partnerships are usually bi-directional, so if you are at a very bad university, there is a chance that Oxford has little interest in associating with (and, consequently, sending their students to) your place. Secondly, each of those partnership agreements defines quotas (in both directions). Not everybody can go to Oxford simply because there are only a finite number of places for Oxford available. Afaik, the host institution decides who can go if there are more interested students than places available for any given period. In most places, assignment of students to places seems to be more or less on a first-come-first-served basis. However, I heard that at least in my alma mater most partnerships had more places than interested students, so in the end everybody could go.

That being said, in reality it's not places like Oxford that end up being more popular. Generally speaking, most students don't seem to select host universities based on the esteem of their academics, but rather based on weather and perceived coolness of the country.


Department head said that group project may be rejected. How to mitigate?

It seems like this will come down to your university's rules and the personalities involved. Still, let's consider:

  He mentioned by email that university norms require 4 people working on a group project and the Academic Registrar's permission would be required to do it alone.

So you were very specifically told, in writing, that you would need to get approval from the registrar.

  I replied (cc'ing my mentor) asking if I would have to meet the registrar. I received no reply.

And you didn't get approval from the registrar. As a "working professional", you should know that you can't just send one e-mail and then drop the matter -- it's your responsibility to run this to ground.

  My mentor asked if I got the Registrar's permission.

Well that was predictable

  During the entire two months my mentor, the HoD and even classmates were aware that I was doing the project alone.

They probably assumed that you had gotten approval from the registrar as they had told you to. It would have been nice if they had followed up on this, but this is not their responsibility.

  I'm a working professional. Working in groups is an everyday job. Even companies have realized that certain people perform better when not in a group and are hired as "individual contributors". What is a university's purpose in forcing people to work together.

This is very much not the point. The program can impose whatever (reasonable) requirements it wants. Learning to work in groups is a reasonable goal, regardless of whether you personally already have background working in groups.

  What would be the right way to respond to him without sounding defensive?

This is the part that comes down to your university's rules and the personalities involved. It may be that this is a strict rule and there is nothing that anyone can do. Or, it may be that there is a process for an appeal or exception. I would start by recognizing that you are in the wrong.


Is there data or research on the tradeoffs associated with allowing anonymous posting on forums like Piazza?

I have used Piazza in many mathematics courses. I can say, anecdotally but confidently, that students LOVE the anonymity option. Not everyone uses it, but I have had plenty of them tell me, either in person or (anonymously!) on course evaluations, that they appreciate the option since they can ask a seemingly "dumb" question without fear of appearing ignorant or uninformed. Perhaps this is particularly relevant in mathematics, where anxiety and performance-based fear is, alas, quite normal, but I'd imagine students in other disciplines would make similar comments.


Some rightpondian can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "reading" in this context is British for "studying", and it does usually imply university study.  The person in question is most likely attending the equivalent of law school.

In the US, lawyers typically write "Esq." after their name, which doesn't really signify anything specific but is traditional.  This doesn't have anything to do with degrees they may or may not have.  (And even lawyers with a J.D. degree don't usually write J.D. after their names, nor use the title Dr.)


How long does it take to receive feedback for Junior Professorship (W1) in Germany after interview?

Christian Clason's comment is basically correct. The hiring process for W1 is the same as W2 and W3 and reports are collected after the interviews. So the time from interview to notification is not short. However, it don't need to be six month.

What usually happens after
the interviews is that the committee solicites reports and the referees get about six to ten weeks for their reports. Then the committee meets again and forms its recommendation. This is the first point at which you may be told your suggested listing, but this is unofficial and at some places even against the rules. The next steps are that a number of committees have to approve the list (can be something between two and four) and only after the head of the university has approved the list, the first place may be informed officially. This whole process may well take six months, but it can be less, but do not expect less than six weeks between interviews and unofficial notification and not less then three months between interview and official offer.


What does it mean when a conference submission system asks if the first author is a student?

It can mean lots of things and only the conference organizers can tell you the reason. There could be student paper awards, travel awards, or student presentation sessions. There could be research speed dating or a desire to have more student presentations in each section.

Likely the peer review will not change, but the selection process might chnage. Paper selection is not just about the best paper, but about the best fit given the goals of the conference.


Differences between MSc Program in Engineering in TU and Research Universities in the Netherlands

Both type of universities are research intensive, so the adjective "research" is not useful to distinguish them. In the Netherlands they are usually called "classical" and "technical" universities, which is the terminology I will use here. In general the distinction is that the universities of technology are more application-oriented, while the other classical universities are more theory-oriented. The TU's typically have closer ties to industry. Of course in current research the boundary between "applied" and "theoretical" research is not always so clear, and you will find both types of research in both types of universities, but in general this is one of the main things that distinguish the universities.

Another difference is that the TU's also only offer programs in engineering and related disciplines (with a few exceptions), while the classical universities also offer courses in the humanities and social sciences.

What is better in terms of choosing a university to study depends on what your interests are. Most engineering programs (like civil engineering) are only offered at the TU's, but programs such as computer science, mathematics or physics are offered on both types of universities, although their focus will be different as explained above.

Apart from that, there are also "Hogescholen" which in English are typically called "University of Applied Sciences" or something similar. These types of institutions are not research-oriented and typically do not offer graduate programs (or only for MSc and not PhD).


Letters are supposed to be short articles with innovative content, easy to communicate for the general scientific community.

From the Physical Review Letters website:

  It publishes short, high quality reports of significant and notable
  results in the full arc of fundamental and interdisciplinary physics
  research.

I've never heard about that another definition, seems like it is specific from the Nuovo Cimento journal. I would think that it publishes long articles with exhaustive detailed technical/theoretical reports.


Advisor not responding to emails, conference fee deadline approaching

Many conference organizers are well aware of how "organized" some advisors / faculty / university accounting departments are.
Contact them and if you can provide evidence that it will "eventually" be paid then they will usually accept that.


I am reading a paper that I barely understand. How can I make the best of my mentor in this situation?

Jumping in to a new sub field can be hard. The vocabulary is new and you don't yet have the insights of those with more experience.

If you trust your advisor, you could just say what you say here, but ask for the important background papers (or books) that will help bring you up to speed quickly. This is what a colleague would do, so it isn't impossible for a student as well.

As Patricia Shanahan suggests in the the comment, a typical way is to go back through a chain of references until you come to things you understand and then work forward again. This is hard and time consuming of course. It also implies access to a good library (and a good librarian).

But one way to attack the problem is to write down your questions about the paper as they arise. I'd suggest using index cards for this. One question per card. This leaves space for you to supply answers (or references to answers) as you come across them and your understanding improves.

Those cards, once you whittle them down to a reasonable number, can be used both for research (searches, say) and for a conversation with your advisor. Getting answers to a few key questions might let you fill in the rest.

Everyone starts out knowing nothing. In math, insight into some things may help give insight into others, but it isn't guaranteed.


Academic job search: protocol for asking for letters of reference

First a bit of a warning. In many fields, the faculty from different colleges are likely to know and interact with one another at conferences and such. So it would be fairly normal, for a person writing a reference to correspond with another faculty member at your client's college. I assume she wants to avoid that situation, though it may be less important than she thinks.

However, since your client is asking for letters from people known to her and who, in turn know her, it is also fine to include a note giving her current situation and wishes for confidentiality. Not prejudicing a future tenure decision would be a good enough reason, I think.

However, the college(s) to which the recommendations are sent, might also, informally, seek additional information. This may be improper in some places, but it also likely happens. Thus, you can get no absolute guarantee that the current employer won't learn of what is happening. It seems a little harder for me to consider asking the new institution to keep it confidential.

But, while I doubt that there would be a problem in any case, it would be good to have a backup explanation for "looking at another position while being perfectly content" in the current one, not to put words in her mouth.


The best way to determine their criteria is to look at what has previously been accepted in your area of research. AAAI is generally a strong conference with tight standards (around 15% last I recall, if I'm remembering correctly), so there will also be a significant stochastic component driven by the particular reviewers you draw and their mood when they read your paper. AAAI has been taking steps to make the process more fair, however, including giving an author response period, so you are likely to be treated reasonably given the quality of your work.

Bottom line: compare your work to similar prior, and if its close, submit. And be prepared to learn from the experience.


Should research papers that require millions of dollars to development be evaluated on the same track as those that do not?

I feel your question approaches this topic from an unhealthy, competitive perspective: I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that science is about progress, not about a fair distribution of NeurIPS papers, awards, or other brownie points. We accept papers because they expand our knowledge, and we award those that (subjectively) do so by the largest margin. Whether a single person working in their office has generated this knowledge or a team at a company does not change the knowledge that's being produced. In that light, excluding companies from academic research (effectively because they are being too good at it) is silly.
That said, your specific question asks whether there should be different "tracks" (I guess either actual conference tracks or completely separate conferences would qualify) for papers that need a lot of monetary investment. This can certainly be useful, and in my experience it often happens fairly naturally - either because an industry track gets created and gains importance over the years (as happening for instance at ICSE with its Software Engineering in Practice track), or because an academic conference gets more and more industry interest until it essentially becomes an industry conference with an academic track (this has arguably happened with WWW and maybe NeurIPS, although I don't know enough about NeurIPS to be able to tell).
However, you may not like the result very much - once you push all those expensive and highly practical contributions into a separate thread, you may find that people actually value these papers higher than your (now clearly earmarked) theoretical academic papers. The end result may be that the highest-prestige tracks or conferences are the ones where you as an academic aren't even the target audience anymore. The top conference of my field, ICSE, isn't quite there yet (the research track is still higher-prestige than the industry track), but you can already today observe that attendance in industry track talks is higher than in research sessions.
That said (and this brings me back to the opening paragraph), I'm not sure what the problem is. At the end of the day we should be happy that the field progresses and that people are interested in what's being produced. As long as academic contributions in the field are still useful and valuable, meetings, conferences will remain available. And it pays to remember that academics rarely compete directly with industry anyway (say in the context of jobs, promotions, or grants).


Should one add a "research statement" in their CV

A research statement is usually a longer document describing what research you did, why you did it, why it's important, and what you want to do in the future. While your CV should just be about stating the facts about your career, your education, achievements etc. So, no, I would not put a research statement in a CV
However you should add a section listing your research projects (completed and ongoing). Example:

(2019-2020) 3rd year Bsc project: Designing a new algorithm to do X.
(2019) Summer project: Built a web app to do Y.

If you craft the description right, you can explain very succinctly what you did, without it becoming a research statement.
Don't worry about the length of the CV, you are applying for a PhD so it's expected that it won't be very long.


Are there good ways to approach a professor for a postdoc?

The best way to do so is simply to email them. If your research interests align with theirs and your publication record is sufficiently impressive it'll start a conversation at the very least. Don't forget to attach an updated CV. If you're uncomfortable with this (or your publication record is not sufficiently impressive), some avenues to get their attention could be

Have a mutual professional acquaintance facilitate an introduction.
Look through their publications, find one that you're interested in and begin a discussion through it: how would you improve it? If you have amazing ideas that'll get their attention.

Be advised that funding is a major issue when taking on a postdoc. Some pure math fields do not attract research funding, so make sure that the professor has funding to take you (e.g. their website says they're looking, or they are advertising in mathematics mailing lists).

Good luck!


Double publication & parallel submitting a same study as a Paper and Patent

In other words, is a published patent besides its copy as journal paper considered as double publication?

Typically there is no copyright problem, because there is no overlap in the text.  A patent consists of formal legal writing, and it generally does not use any of the text of the academic paper.  If you wanted to use some of the same text, then you would need to make sure the publisher of the paper did not object.  However, this is uncommon: academic and legal writing styles differ substantially, and they are aiming at very different purposes, so any substantial overlap would indicate that you are doing a poor job of at least one of the two (and you might as well avoid minor overlap so that you don't have to address the copyright issue).

Even aside from copyright, there is still the question of whether this is considered a form of double publication or simultaneous submission.  I believe the answer is almost always no: patents don't count as academic publications and publishers will not care or object.  However, it can't hurt to ask before submitting, just to make sure this is how it works in your field and for this particular journal.  It's also a good idea to mention the patent submission in your cover letter when submitting the paper, so that nobody could accuse you of concealing this information.  (I'd be shocked if it were a problem, but better safe than sorry.)

Keep in mind that very little of the academic content will actually appear in the patent application.  Academic papers are typically focused on experiments, data analysis, or theory, but these would not be included in the patent application itself.  Instead, it is a description of an invention and how it is used in practice, together with a long list of legal claims laying out which aspects of the invention are worthy of legal protection.  Academics could learn something from the description of the invention, but it in no way substitutes for the academic paper.


Slides for a brief presentation at a PhD Interview

1) Remember working on a PhD is a commitment and there will be times when you will want to give up so the question is "What will keep you going?"

Motivation is a key factor in whether or not we stick to a task. This is the reason why they are asking you for this slide in particular. As an interviewer, I would like to know first if your motivation is intrinsic or extrinsic and then what specifically moves you to progress through a task or pursue this field.

2) Presenting in front of an audience when "something is at stake" can be nerve-racking. Your slides should be a way to quickly remind you what you need to discuss in case you block out. However, for the viewer the slides must be engaging and informative but not overwhelming. Even your thesis slides don't need to be overly technical because the interviewers are interested in whether you can present your findings to both technical and non-technical audiences, alike. I would recommend providing a high level overview first sprinkled with some technical terms but no details then as time permits elaborate increasing the technical level and vocabulary as you progress.


Do author name(s) dominate the content of the paper?

In what you have written, you are confusing together two things:

Is the author known to the reviewers? (e.g., "names with a good track record")
Is the paper well written? (e.g., "English is poor")

While some sub-fields may have "cliques" that exclude people who are not part of them, most reputable scientific publications have a basically honest review process.  Reviewers are human, and so even honest reviewers will tend to look more favorably on a person whose work they already respect---and thus many publication venues have double-blind review to try to eliminate this possibility.

If you haven't published in a well-reputed journal before, however, there's a good chance that your paper will not be well-written. Writing scientific papers is a skill, and that skill takes practice. Moreover, writing well is often much harder if you aren't writing in your primary language.  And even if you write well in general, writing effectively to a particular scientific community requires being conversant with the current state of that community, in order to understand how readers (and reviewers) are likely to think about what you write.

Thus, I would strongly agree with your colleagues that it is extremely useful to get an expert to look at your paper.  I would strongly disagree that means that expert should become an author---merely reading and commenting on a draft is definitely not sufficient for authorship.

If the expert finds problems in what you have written and is interested to become involved, however, it might be very good to begin a collaboration in which they work with you to refine your work and connect it better to the community of interest. In that case, the expert would indeed become a co-author: not because their name is valuable, but because their expertise has helped to improve the paper into something much stronger than it was before.


How/Whether to correct a wrong paper published in a prestigious journal

It is hard to tell whether you are on firm or shaky ground. If the ground is firm, probably the best way to approach it is to write a paper yourselves with correct results and see if the same journal will publish it.

But, the ground may be shaky for the following reasons.

In mathematics, a failed proof doesn't leave the result false, just unproven. It gives no evidence for the validity of the claim. A counterexample, on the other hand, leaves the result certainly false. So, it may be that, while an argument fails to deliver, the overall result is still correct, just not provably so.

But a result that is (if true) contradictory to the original, then the original must be false. This is actually stronger than a counterexample, since a counterexample only shows that a general statement is false, but might leave some specialization of it true, provided that the specialization excludes the counterexample.

However, in this case you say that your analysis leads to different results. If those results are contradictory to the original claims, and if your reasoning is correct, then you may have the basis of a paper.

However (again), if your results aren't, in fact, contradictory, then your advisor is giving good advice that you explore the intersection of what it is that the original paper claims and what you claim from your analysis. This might also give you the basis for a good paper, leaving some of the original claims win place, but improving on them.

I suspect that the situation is complex enough that a simple letter to the editor of the journal, pointing out the error, isn't going to be sufficiently compelling for anyone to take action. If the journal in which you find the original is reputable, then many people have missed the errors, implying a certain subtlety. This leads me to suggest that a full paper laying out the situation is more appropriate.

And even if this invalidates some early work of your advisor, he is at an advantage in being part of the process that corrects it.


As usual, if you include information about geographic location (both the current one and the one(s) in which you intend for the future) and your field, you can get more specific advice.  Advice which is generalized across all the world's academia is at times extremely superficial.

I will speak from the perspective of American academic mathematics.  In this subculture, taking a full year off before starting a postdoc looks bad: the competition for postdocs is extremely fierce right now.  For every postdoc position there are at least five other people who wanted that position but couldn't get it.  So employers really want to give jobs to people who are sure that they want them, not those who are feeling "kind of burned out" or "need a big break to think clearly of what I really want".

If you take a full year off instead of applying for postdocs, then unless you have something amazing to show for yourself at the end of that time, the year off will definitely hurt your applications.  Whether or not you can actually do work during a "year off" seems highly field dependent: in mathematics this is certainly possible; in laboratory science this seems much less feasible.

Here is some advice that I would offer you:

1) If you want to take some length of time off, try to secure a job upon return before you take the time off.

If this happens then in some sense you do not really have an employment gap, and that will look much better on your CV.

2) Consider taking a smaller amount of time off than a year.

A year is a really long time to put aside one's career.  In fact many people would have trouble supporting themselves (especially if they have families or dependents, which I guess you do not) over such a long unpaid stretch.   It is also more than enough time for your academic skills to atrophy.  In some academic fields (pure mathematics not so much, although in some subfields this could still come into play) a year off is enough to make your entire research program less fresh and cutting edge.  Anyway, imagine that you are competing with many talented young people who spent the first year after getting their PhD working their butts off.  Do you really want to spot them an entire year headstart?  As other people remarked in a closely related question: whether it is fair or not, you should imagine that a big clock in the sky starts ticking the second you receive your PhD.  From that point on, people will be evaluating your work not just in an absolute sense but relative to the time elapsed from that point.  Adding in an extra year makes almost anyone's profile look much less strong.

I think you should consider taking a shorter amount of time off: either a semester or a long summer.  As the American academic calendar runs, you will have a built-in vacation of about three months just by virtue of being an unemployed PhD over the summer.  I really enjoyed this time: I moved into an apartment downtown in the city where I grew up but hadn't spent more than a few weeks at a time for my entire adult life.  It really was refreshing and recharged my batteries.  However, it also depleted my savings: by the time the new semester rolled around, I really needed the paychecks.

If you need much more than three months' break from a career, you should ask yourself: are you sure that this career is really for you?


Situations like yours happen, unfortunately. Development gets delayed, experiments get postponed and suddenly a supposedly nice scientific project becomes a thesis of half-baked tests and questionable results, which you can't be proud of. I'm very sorry it happened to you.
If you are sure you won't stay in academia, perhaps it's a good idea to start branching out now. In my home country it's possible to work and have a PhD position at the same time. Additionally, the experience is valued there more than a title. Based on that a possible course of action would be to start looking for a job and discuss with a prospective employer whether they are interested in you finishing the PhD programme. If so, you could perhaps arrange how much time you spend at work and at the institution so that you start to gain the experience and get the title, as well.


What's the benefit of delaying a tenure-track position for doing a postdoc (when you already have a tenure-track offer)?

Once you have a t-t position, you're in a race against time to get as many publications as you can before your tenure clock runs out.

A postdoc effectively gives you one more year of focused attention to research and publications before you have to start teaching.

Note that teaching can be highly disruptive to research and publications, especially in your first year.


Thesis: supervisor's project or my project?

My impression is that a PhD student should be able to determine what projects to work on and to include in the thesis. Obviously I am happy to do some side projects to keep my supervisor happy, but I am hoping that I should be able to decide what I want to work on without offending my supervisor.

In an ideal world, yes. In reality, there are practicalities to consider:

At least here in Europe the biggest factor is what the grant that pays for you says. If you are, for instance, funded via an H2020 project, you are most certainly not free to decide what you want to work on. Your money comes with a clear "description of work", and substantial deviations from this work plan need to be justified. Other grants may be less (or, in case of industrial funding, even more) strict, but there is certainly no universal rule that as a PhD student you should be free to work on whatever.
Another factor is the strategic research plan of your advisor. Your advisor has, or at least should have, a long-term plan, and if your project does not fit in with the plan, your project may be, speaking bluntly, a waste of time and money for him, even if it is an otherwise nice project.
There is also the problem that your advisor also requires some competency in your project, both to help you when you are stuck and to evaluate your progress and final dissertation. Many advisors will be unwilling to supervise students on research attempts that are too far outside their core expertise (usually also in combination with the previous point, that those are often simply not very valuable to their long-term goals).
Finally, your advisor may also be wary that the project may not be academically promising enough. I have seen often that younger researchers tend to confuse projects that are "interesting to work on" with those that are "likely to lead to interesting results". You should at least consider why your advisor is "not interested in your results", and ask yourself the question whether other senior academics will feel the same.

Of course this does not mean that you always need to slave for your advisor and should bury all ambitions of developing projects on your own. In practice, the best PhD students juggle their own interests with the interests of their advisor.


Is it ethical to force graduate applicants to decide before they hear back from all schools?

The April 15 Resolution technically applies only to offers of financial support, not to offers of admission. There’s no clear-cut rule saying a school can’t require an early answer for admissions, saying it’s unethical to do so is a difficult claim to make. To my mind, it’s definitely poor form and suggests that the program is either (a) quite prestigious and doesn’t need to worry too much about yield or (b) rather noncompetitive and desperate for enrollees, but they’re risking rejections as well with the hardline approach they’re taking. (Funny how extreme cases in different directions can take the same approach!)

However, given that the program in question is unfunded, it's completely unreasonable for them to expect you to commit irrevocably to an offer of admission, particularly since they are effectively not committing any additional resources to offer you admission. I would thus feel no moral qualms whatsoever in withdrawing my acceptance if another, funded program were to make an offer before the April 15 deadline.


All people deal with getting old(er) in some way, but I can think of a few aspects that are unique to academics.

One way to keep up the performance is to gradually shift from hands-on work to advisory work. It is clear that an aging professor can't keep up with the hours invested, enthusiasm, desire to prove oneself, etc. of a PhD student or junior faculty. However, our older guy has participated in a lot of academic craft (writing papers/grants, advising, doing research, reviewing, etc.) over the years, which can give a significant edge to junior people around him. Guiding others can and does produce scientific breakthroughs even though the senior professor didn't think it all up by himself. Further, it also educates the next generation of researches which also an important and challenging job.

People outside of academia are usually obligated (with exceptions, of course) to retire at a given age. On the other hand, a professor has the possibility to attain the emeritus rank, which lets him be an active member of the academic community theoretically until the end of his life. This partially offsets the time investment of PhD studies, postdocs, etc., if the argument is that people in academia have fewer "productive years" as opposed to people who start off right after undergraduate.

Finally, professors are usually respected members of their communities, so even if some of them perform less in their later career, there are always other duties they can excel at. For example, focus on teaching or department duties or writing books.

In my opinion, none of these options is inferior to the "pure research" track and I feel that many come naturally as personal development. In other words, I don't think aging professors find it necessary to outright compete with their younger colleagues, but rather mature into other roles that benefit the academic community.


How does the class time in the day and week impacts the students' learning outcome?

I came across the following study:

  T McElroy, L Mosteller
  The influence of circadian type, time of day and class difficulty on students' grades.
  http://vjbennett.pbworks.com/f/circadian+rhythms.pdf

In the conclusions of the work, they mention that the students have a best performance if their optimal time-of-day (i.e., if they are monrningness type or eveniningness type) coincide with the class schedule. By contrast the classes that require less cognitive functioning are less sensitive to the advantage and disadvantage of optimal and non-optimal time-of-day.


Can I submit an unofficial TOEFL score report if the official one won't be received by the university before the deadline?

In my experience, universities don't have a deadline for official scores. They do however have a deadline for when you should have taken the exam. If you took the exam before the deadline, they either know that the scores will arrive before they actually start reviewing your application, or they don't consider the scores until later in the process. You can always contact them and ask if they would like an unofficial score report, but if you took the exam before the deadline it will not be a problem.


What does "the manuscript has been removed from your Associate Editor Center" mean?

From its wording this e-mail is intended for the associate editor managing the manuscript in question. Thus unless you are an associate editor of said journal and were the editor assigned to the paper in question, this mail is not intended for you. Therefore you should not have received this e-mail. That you did receive it anyway means that something went wrong. Contact the journal and tell them what happened.


Perils of making a PhD application merely to get funding

It can always happen that a PhD student may not complete, and for a wide variety of reasons, so I doubt that you could actually be prosecuted for fraud for a case like this, unless someone could really prove it.  But realise that whether or not fraud could be proven, such an action could be highly unethical.  Tax payers in your host country would be paying for something they didn't get, and supervisors and administrators would be investing time in someone believing they were likely to become a PhD.  It would be taking away funding from someone, possibly multiple people, who really did want a PhD, both because you would have taken money that could have gone to someone else, but also because in the future, an application similar to yours might not be ranked so well if the admissions board was afraid the outcome might be similar.


Time organization for an engineer who works full-time and pursuing PhD

I am currently doing my master in information science (on top of the PhD I already have) while having a (more than) fulltime job. There are some advices I would give someone planning to do something similar:

Be organized. I started to be much more organized than evere before and are using management tools in addition to organize my study times and keep track of deadlines, meetings, courseworks, ... Some examples: I have three google calendars with different colours, one for my private dates, one for my fulltime job and one for my studies. Trello helps me to keep track of long checklists, projects, deadlines and so on. My files, texts, scripts are organized systematically on my computer.
Clear your mind. Write down tasks and plans. The less you have to keep in mind, the better you can learn.
Say goodbye to perfectionism. No matter how much you try: While having a fulltime job you will never achieve the studying time a fulltime student has. If you try to be perfect in everything, this might simply demoralize you and if there is one thing you defenitely don't need, it's demoralization.
Plan breaks. If you don't plan breaks, you won't have breaks. Since you will need breaks to not burn out, plan breaks and days off. Even if you think you don't need a break, take breaks.

There are two articles with further thoughts, one on idealist and one on thefinancialdiet.


Do math PhDs - post-doctoral researchers have an advisor?

This varies greatly, depending on the type of postdoctoral position.  Some postdocs are funded by a specific grant.  Then they have a supervisor, namely the PI on the grant.  How formal the supervision is can vary, but someone is at least nominally in charge of the postdoc, and there's an expectation that the postdoc will do something relevant to the grant.

Other postdocs are hired by the department or a mathematics institute, rather than a particular PI (this is especially common in pure mathematics).  Often the postdoc is assigned a mentor, but what's involved in the mentoring relationship can vary.  It could consist of collaborative research, serious professional guidance, or just chatting occasionally.


Academic dishonesty after acceptance of graduate school

The graduate school, or whoever sets local regulation, can do whatever they want.  But most likely:

No information will be sought beyond a transcript.
The graduate school will not find out about misconduct not on the transcript.
If the graduate school finds out, and any information you provide agrees with information provided by your previous institution, the graduate school will consider the previous institution's actions to have settled the matter.

If you disagree with your previous institution's findings, instead of saying "Y happened", say " found that X happened, but I found that Y happened."  This way it is clear you are not misleading anyone.


Is rejection the default decision for international applicants to PhD programs in the US?

It is a tremendous generalization to speak of all programs having the same default decision, or all members of an admissions committee in a program having the same default decision, or even to assume the existence of a default decision at all.

In reality, a more likely consideration an admissions committee member might use is, "Does this candidate have similar credentials and experience to successful PhD students we have admitted in the past?" (i.e., no "default" decision.)

However, if we're going to generalize and assume the existence of a default decision:

For programs in which there are a large number of applicants for relatively few positions, the default decision for any applicant is "reject, unless the applicant is extremely strong."
For programs in which there are relatively few applicants for a large number of positions, the default decision is "accept, unless there is some evidence this student is unsuitable for the program."

Programs at top-ranked departments, in fields where PhDs are in high demand, and where PhD students are generally fully funded, are more likely to fall in the first category.

Programs at lower-ranked departments, in fields where PhDs are not in high demand, and where students usually fund themselves, are more likely to fall in the second category.

The nationality of the applicant is not generally relevant in the "default" decision, barring exceptional circumstances (e.g., admissions committees in nuclear engineering at U.S. universities may reject Iranian students by default since 2012 because they will be ineligible for visas.)


Graduate school and students with learning disabilities

WARNING: Stay at your home institution, even if it means that you
might not get your ideal pick of subject area. Once you leave
your home undergrad institution, you won't be able to get back
your accomodations so easily. I was accepted and into a Math PhD
program this year with full funding. I moved across the country
to work with a certain professor at this new school.

The math department is awesome, but the disability services is
horrible. I was told that I am the only graduate student that has
ever asked for accomodations...ever! The director of the center
somehow thinks that I am being insincere despite the multiple
levels of documentation that I have sent. The higher your level
of education is, the more likely it is that you are supposed to
be a failure if you are an LD student. Since you'll be going into
math, they simply won't believe that you have any problems.

Do not disclose that you require accomodations to anyone until
after you have been accepted with funding. Get these issues
settled before you start classes. It might even be a good idea to
defer your studies until you get these issues resolved with the
disability services.

If you have poor grades due to a learning disability and want to
get into a grad school, then you must compensate with published
research with your professors. When it comes to graduate
acceptance, they are only looking for research potential. They
will overlook your GRE scores or grades if they are above the
50th percentile and you have a strong research background. The
GRE isn't predictive of anything for math students because it is
a timed exam full of highschool math problems that you can do in
your sleep. With a learning disability, you will get a low score
because you will only finish fewer than half of the problems, but
since you are a math major, you will get all of them
right. Again, they are highschool math problems.

The only grades that really count are are your proof-heavy math
courses. You should try to get As in most of these. Especially
Abstract Algebra and Analysis. The grad school will ignore any
past failures in the pre-calc through calculus sequence of
courses if you have done well in the proof heavy
courses (abstract algebra, analysis, topology, number theory,
combinatorics, graph theory).

Go to all of the mathematics conferences and colloquiums. Hang
out with the professors. Get to know a few of them very
well. Learn about their research. They will give you toy problems
to take home for fun. If you do enough of these, then they will
eventually give you some real problems to work on. Then all of a
sudden, you will be presenting at conferences and publishing
papers with them. They will write you awesome letters for grad
school.

Once in grad school, you will have to deal with another hurdle --
the qualifier exam (quals). These are typically timed exams. You
will have to make a really good impression on all of the
department's professors for several years if you want them to
argue for giving you more time on the quals. Giving someone
without a learning disability more time on the quals will not
change the outcome of the exam, so they will allow more time in
the case of an LD student.

In grad school, you will work with your professors very
closely. Work on their problems for a while. Eventually you will
run into something that they haven't thought of. This will be
your PhD thesis. Every question that you can answer in math
generates new questions.

Your mathematics ability is judged by creativity, not on
speed.


Issues with Master admission because of transfer to another university during undergraduate studies

Don't lie.  They asked for all your transcripts, so if you omit one then your application is fraudulent. Even if you're admitted to this masters program, fraud in your application should be sufficient reason to expel you if it's discovered later.


Does the term “science” encompass humanities and the social sciences?

The term "science" in English definitely does not include the humanities.  There are ambiguous cases, where it is unclear how to draw the line between humanities and social sciences, but for example literature is never considered a science.  If you wish to include the humanities, then you must use a broader term.

Social sciences are a little trickier.  At one level, they are obviously sciences: it's even part of their name!  On the other hand, people sometimes use the term "science" as shorthand for the hard sciences, without meaning to include the social sciences.  This means you are welcome to use the term inclusively, but you shouldn't expect that it always includes the social sciences when you hear other people using it.  If this distinction matters, then you'll need to discuss it explicitly.

It's worth noting that there are a lot of other things that don't fall under "science" in English, besides the humanities.  For example, engineering has some overlap with science, but engineering fields are usually not classified by universities under the sciences, and references to science will not be understood to include engineering.  (This is one reason the term STEM is popular: it's the shortest way to refer to both science and engineering in English.)

  If so, is there an umbrella term describe everything from social science over STEM to law and what not?

Unfortunately, I don't think there is.  (Maybe there are obscure terms out there, but there certainly isn't one that is widely used and understood.)  You could use broad phrases like "all academic disciplines" if you really want to include everyone, but there is not a specific term like "science" for this.


Is it beneficial to prefer keywords complementary to words in the title?

Key-words are crucial for indexing, whereas the words chosen for the title and the abstract are impactful for free text searches.

For instance, you may search PubMed with key-words (using the [mh] tag), with title words (using the [ti] tag), with title or abstract words (using the [tiab] tag), and so forth.

In case you use in the title and abstract words which correspond to indexing terms, then you may find reasonable to use alternative words as key-words. However, the most important thing is to use, in at least one of the venues (key-words, title, or abstract), the accepted indexing terms.


Filler submission to the American Mathematical Monthly

The Monthly's journal page has a section on submissions:

https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/american-mathematical-monthly#Submission

There are no listed requirements for fillers, which probably means that there are no strict requirements, just an item the editors deem appropriate.  My first suggestion is to browse through recent issues and look at other fillers to see if yours will fit in.

Second, the above link says:

  Questions concerning submission of papers can be addressed to the editor [name + email]

So if you have specific, focused questions you can try asking.  Alternatively, you could just submit and wait for the review/editorial process for feedback.


Does a low page limit (3 pages) indicate anything about the quality of a conference?

Do not confuse quality and quantity: the two dimensions are orthogonal.

A 3-page limit means that the conference is really asking for extended abstracts, rather than full papers.  You can't say much in a 3-page extended abstract, even in the highly dense IEEE two-column format, so it can't be treated the same as a full paper, but that's not reason for it to be bad, just terse.  The conference might well attract very high quality 3-page extended abstracts.  One thing that some such conferences do is have an associated journal special issue, where full papers are later invited.


Should I put my résumé on LinkedIn when applying for a PhD?

I don't think it really makes any difference.

Admissions committees are not in the habit of doing social media searches for applicants.  In fact, I don't think I've ever heard an academic talk about using LinkedIn at all.  (Maybe it is more commonly used in certain fields that are more closely related to business.)  Even if they did, there's no particular reason they should come across your profile, and no particular reason why finding a resume there or not would influence anyone's decision.

The only possible benefit of posting I can imagine is that if, somehow, one of the admissions committee happened to see it and form some favorable impression of you, that might help their opinion when they read your application.  But that seems like an unlikely coincidence to hope for.

On the other hand, I can't imagine any possible way in which having your resume on LinkedIn could be a disadvantage in the application process.  So from that point of view, you probably might as well post it.

On a related note, I would not recommend trying to add LinkedIn connections to faculty members at the university where you are applying.  Since most probably don't use LinkedIn, this will just result in them getting annoying emails.  And you don't want them to read your application and think "Hey, I remember that name - this is the guy who's sending me all that LinkedIn spam.  What a jerk."


Conference; withdraw submission before results notification

In certain cases, e.g., when you found a serious error in your paper, it is very acceptable to withdraw the paper, as soon as you possible. Paper can be withdrawn even if accepted. It is better to withdraw as soon as possible, to allow the conference to accept other papers or to avoid the overhead of reviewing the paper.

Even from your own perspective, you also would definitely prefer to withdraw a paper as soon as possible, and definitely before it appears on the list of accepted papers (or worse, in the proceeding). Otherwise, questions may be raised about the paper that appears in the list but not presented, or worse, you will be publishing an incorrect paper. Both may  affect your reputation.

(I assume you wish to withdraw because some kind of a problem, but maybe your situation is different; in that case, you can edit your question to give more details)


Can an international student manage his cost of living in Australia if his 4 years PhD tuition fee is waived off by the university?

It is next to impossible.

I cannot say about Perth, but in Sydney you need at least 15,000 AUD per year to cover your living expenses, assuming you share a room. The minimal salary in Australia is roughly 30,000 AUD per year, and as a low-skilled worker you cannot get a salary much higher than this. This means you will have to work at least a half of your time. Then it is unclear how you will be able to focus on your PhD project and become a good scientist.

In Perth, it is likely to be even worse. Perth is more expensive than the other Australian big cities, although salaries may be higher there as well.

Getting a job in Australia is not easy. I've read that according to unemployment statistics, those people who get unemployment benefits spend about half a year on average to find a new job. If you are a foreigner, and if your language skills are far from ideal, you are at a considerable disadvantage in the job market.

On top of that, there may be restrictions on the number of hours you are allowed to work as a student.

However, if your aim is not to become a scientist, but to migrate to Australia, and if you are prepared to face three years of very hard life, it might work for you, but you've got to know what you are doing. If you live in Australia for three years as a PhD student, you may be able to find a legal way to remain in Australia after your PhD program (e.g., by getting a job). Your Australian PhD degree will be a plus. Remember, however, that you cannot become an Australian permanent resident and later get Australian citizenship simply by legally staying in Australia for a certain number of years. I know people who lived in Australia for almost a decade on temporary working visas and were unable to get the status of permanent resident. The common ways of getting that status are to marry a permanent resident or get a long-term working contract whose end date is more that 3 years after the starting date. You have to be a really valuable worker to find an employer who agrees to sign such a long contract with you.

If you want to pursue an academic career, my advice is to find any place in the world where you can get a PhD stipend that will allow you to fully focus on science. If you have a good academic record, this should not be a problem. Many professors have funds on their grants and need good PhD students.


University asking for documents I just uploaded online

Don't overthink this.  Just send them an email and ask.


Is it necessary to reply to a solution email by a thank-you email?

It is appropriate? Sure, what is the harm? It is always nice to see one's work recognised and appreciated. Just keep it short, polite, and to the point.

Is it expected? Probably no. The staff is busy, and if your question wasn't anything out of the ordinary, they would probably forget you asked soon.

Edit: mbert adds in the comments some interesting inside information:

  I am an assistant at my university and answer a lot of emails through a ticketing system. Our signature says something similar about replying. This is because when I answer an email, the ticket gets closed and marked done. If you answer to this email the ticket gets reopened and somebody needs to close it again. So I would suggest to answer with a short sentence but only if you are not emailing with a team that shares an email ( like staff@... or support@... )

(Emphasis mine).


How to gracefully leave a lab due to poor infrastructure and aiming to move into a new field of research?

Start interviewing now. When asked, explain your interest in changing fields and that your current postdoc is not a great fit for your new interests.
If your PhD advisor will write you a strong letter, having a letter from a job you only held for a couple months won't matter much. Likewise don't stick around to try to publish something unless you're very close. The most important thing you can do for your career is to get a job you like and will work for you ASAP. Losing a couple months is OK. Losing three years will torpedo you.


To apply for a PhD. position, should I first contact the professor I like to work with or publish a couple of papers and then make attempts?

I am considering a PhD as well so I am right there with you.  I think the answer to your question depends on many factors though.
1. Did you get a masters or are you just going straight for a PhD from a bachelors?
1b.  If you received your masters, does the institution you got it from have a doctorate program and would it make sense to go there for your PhD to save on time?
2. How long have you been out of school and how relevant has your work experience been?  Is publishing a few papers first a realistic goal for you or will doing so push off your timeline of when you plan to start school too much?

In general, I think it's fine to talk with the professor you like to work with even if you end up applying right away, as it will give you a better indication of what you need to do and if the school is even a right fit for you.  And I think it would be good to talk to the postgraduate studies section as well.  I don't think you need to do any particular step before the other, there's nothing wrong with doing them all at once.  However, if publishing a few papers first is going to be a very long endeavor, then I would talk to both the professor and the postgraduate studies section first, see how many people tend to apply, how likely you are to receive the funding you need as you are now, and what steps you can take to give yourself that competitive edge before you spend your time trying to get published.  That's not to say you should put publications aside for now either, but if it turns out your resumé is pretty sufficient as is, then you can start the process earlier.

PLUS!  This way you will know when that specific professor is going to have the funds for you. It might turn out they only have the funds for this coming year and if you wait, you won't be able to work with them for a while.  Or it might turn out they won't have the funds for a year or two, and then you can discuss the ways in which you should pad your resumé to increase your chances when the time comes.  And if it turns out that for whatever reason you should wait to apply, you've already started a dialog with that professor and you will be able to strengthen a relationship so that when the time to apply does come, you won't be some random applicant to them.

Good luck,
Hope this helps!


I feel like my teacher is disrespectful towards me in the most subtle, Japanese way possible. What should I do?

She says: "Of course you do." - Respond with a small nod and: "Of course I do:" followed by the question. Also, when you feel humiliated when she waits - you can turn this around. When she waits, look at her in a polite, indulgent manner, with an understanding smile (think: you - the OP - are the adult here!). Obviously (so you can think to yourself), she is unable to answer you more quickly, as you have a difficult question, she needs to reflect first on it.

(Completely independent from that, check - just for yourself - whether you really ask too many questions or whether there is something wrong with them; perhaps they are unnecessary or easily answerable or superfluous? But no reason to feel bad, just inspect your question asking style and check whether it may have something you might be able to improve). In my opinion, there is no need to discuss things with her, as the likelihood is that she will downplay or outright deny it.


Can I write a systematic review by myself?

There is no reason why you cannot write a review on your own, but there are at least three possible problems:

Many journals accept reviews on invitation only (but if you can find a journal that is willing to publish your review that is great).
Writing a review takes a lot more time than you think, especially if you are starting in the field and are not familiar with the literature.
You may need (or at least greatly benefit from) the experience of someone who has already published multiple papers or reviews: both to check and improve the article and to help choosing a journal to submit to.

But there is absolutely no reason not to try if you feel confident enough. Don't underestimate the time it takes though.

To answer your second question: your co-authors are usually your colleagues or people you have worked with. I doubt you will find "people to write reviews with" elsewhere.


How to get a research paper all together

Apologies for stealing scaaahu's comment into this answer, but I wanted to stress that it is really the only possible answer to this question: ask your advisor!

Getting a hang for the appropriate level of detail is a very tricky thing, and only comes with experience. Also with being clever and witty; if you can pull it off, great, but if you can't, then it distracts from the content of your article. There are no general rules for this, you need advice from a more experienced mentor.

If I were you, I would write up a quick draft without stressing too much over these issues, and go over it carefully with your advisor; they would be able to tell you whether your humour is working, or where you need more or less detail.

That said, a few general tips:

Look at the papers you cite; if they all treat some theory as standard or well-known ("By class field theory....") then you probably can too. Same goes for tone.
Often you can save space and omit details by rephrasing your results in a way that suggests how the proof should go. For example, let's say I have a lemma about a linear operator that gets proven by choosing a basis and then something straightforward; I might then state the lemma in terms of the matrix, so it would be more obvious to the reader how to complete the proof.
(and the most important, imo) Engaging papers are not engaging because of witty one-liners, they are typically engaging because a great deal of effort went into organizing them well. The key is to ensure the reader always knows where they are, where they are going, and how they're getting there. This is not at all easy to do, but if you practice writing with this in mind early on, it will serve dividends later.


How to deal with a piece of text and materials that you do not consider essential?

It depends a bit on your field of research.

In fields that have a somewhat strong relationship to mathematics, it is common that lemmas, theorems, examples, etc. are typeset in special environments. You can also typeset a note or a remark in such an environment, which allows the reader to easily skip over the part, and at the same time makes clear that reading this part of the paper is somewhat optional.

As an example, the publisher Springer provides a style file for the document typesetting system LaTeX for publications in their "Lecture Notes in Computer Science" series here. The documentation states in Section 8a that "note" and "remark" environments are available.

Here is how using a "note" in a paper looks like:

Note that there is no rule that prevents you from referencing to a figure in a note.


Incorrect reasons for rejection, what next?

Ok—Your paper was rejected because a reviewer made a mistake. I'll use my powers of Bayesian Induction to guess the editor just defaults to this reviewer, and there's not academic fraud issue. Everyone in academia has a drawer in their desk of decent papers that didn't get published just because.

You already emailed your advisor. You took the first step. That's good. I hope you didn't imply the editor's against you, but if you did, so be it.

Here's what you should you do now:

Go into the bathroom, take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and say: "this is going to be OK." Good papers get initially rejected for stupid reasons all the time.
Show the statement of the theorem, the purported counterexample, and your one-sentence refutation to your advisor or another colleague and get their reaction, to check whether you might have misunderstood the issue.
Did the editor communicate directly with you? How did they communicate with you? If it was by email, write an email back. Write a three-sentence email about why the reviewer's counterexample isn't a counterexample. Show your proposed email to your advisor for feedback before sending it to the editor.
You will wait to get a yes-no answer.
If you still get rejected, submit the paper to another journal.
If all else fails, put the paper up on arxiv and try to present it at a conference.


Repository which allows anonymous authorship

Thank you for all your suggestions. After researching possible options online, I found a web service similar to Dropbox which is available to researchers at my (Swiss) university (https://www.switch.ch/de/drive/). I think this will do, since it allows the anonymous sharing of files via links. Probably similar services are available to researchers in other countries as well.

As a last resort, Dropbox could also be used for this purpose.


Writing a peer-review suggestions letter for a journal editor

If I'm interpreting your question correctly, you're asking about how to respond to a request for potential reviewers by the editor.
It is what it looks like on face value - you suggest potential reviewers, which the editors may or may not use. There is no "list" to choose from. You can suggest anyone as long as they have the technical know-how to review your paper. You should avoid suggesting people who might have a conflict of interest with you (so e.g. other members of your department are excluded).


Are there grants available to pay for travel to my PhD program?

I am not aware of any relocation only independent grants, but there are a number of other ways relocation expenses could be covered. There may be funding available via the University, Department, or PI. If you are being funded by an external grant relocation
expenses may be allowable (e.g., the NIH allows relocation costs).


Is it bad to start an introduction with a direct quote?

While I am not aware of any hard and fast rule against it, I would find it off-putting to read a scientific document that started its prose with a direct quote.  There are just so many ways to start with one's own words that it feels lazy and lacking in self-confidence to me to use another's words for the first impression of a reader.

Note, however, that I am speaking of using a quotation as the first piece of one's prose, as distinct from the practice of putting a separated "thematic" quotation at the start of a document of chapter. I see this somewhat more often, and though I find it a bit "cute" in scientific work, I don't have a problem with it the way I would if somebody starts their prose with a quotation.


How to provide letters of reference for a Postdoc Application

Frequently "reference letter are required to be submitted at the time of application" simply means that "get your letter writers to send their reference letters to e-mail address xxx@yyy.zzz before the submission deadline" (or upload to an appropriate website if the process is more organized).

This is in contrast to the situation in many faculty hires where the reference letters are solicited: in those situations you provide only the names and contact information of your letter writers and the hiring committee, after sifting through the files to narrow down the choices somewhat, then writes to the candidates' recommenders and ask for letters to be sent

That said, if you are applying for a PostDoc you are supposed to be young and naive and not know any better, so there's absolutely no harm in writing to the department/head of lab/hiring committee asking for clarification when you are not sure what the expectation is.


If no revised date is mentioned in the paper, does this means the paper is directly accepted by the journal?

Not necessarily. Some journals only state dates for submission and acceptance. In such cases dates for revisions are not mentioned. Since it is not uncommon, at least in fields with which I am familiar, for papers to go through two (or sometimes more) revisions, a date for revision usually refers to only one, the first set of revisions.

I can also confirm Anonymous Mathematician's notion that some journals only accept papers that receive minor revision and reject those with major, but with the explicit understanding the paper should be resubmitted once revised. This will officially shorten the times from submission to accept but is of course a questionable action to manipulate such statistics.


Conflict of interest with Professor's own business entity

You should read your university's conflict of interest policy and outside employment policy.  Follow the policy as long as you work for the university.
We don't know the policies, and cannot give more detailed advice.
If the policy is unclear or does not exist, get university leaders to fix it.
Keep in mind that the majority of startup companies are never profitable.


Copyright issue regarding creating an image by using other images taken from a website

Any image is copyrighted unless the author releases it into public domain or some special circumstance apply (author dead long ago, image below threshold of originality, etc.). You can't reuse the image or make a derivative work from it without consent of copyright options.

As far as I can see you have three options:

Ask the copyright holders to give you permission to use the images. First you would need to identify who are the copyright owners.
Look for an equivalent image already released under a free license - free enough for your intended use - and abide to the license (that may include acknowledge author, release under similar license or refrain from commercial use). Wikipedia Commons may be a good place to search for such image.
Create your own version of those images. Images are not free but information is. You can adopt the positions depicted in the images and ask a friend to photograph you. This way you (and your friend) will be the copyright holders and you can do whatever you want with the image.

In some academic settings, you could use an image and cite it, but I'm not sure about something different than citing (and reproducing) and image from an academic journal in another academic journal.

And of course, I must admit people very often copy images in the Internet without abiding to copyright and nothing happens, but I wouldn't do it in a paper. In fact, I doubt any editor would let you to do so.

In summary, taking in account how easy would be to create equivalent images (by drawing or by photograph) I would create new images unless I could find free equivalent ones.


How to make time to pursue research while employed as a part-time lecturer at two universities?

Would you be willing to move to another university?  It would be challenging, but possible.  My hunch is that if your school does not value research, and if that's really what excites you more than teaching, then long term  it will probably be hard for you to be satisfied where you are now.

If you do want to move, then I suggest that you focus on establishing a reputation in some small area, and also that you try to make contacts with researchers at other universities who are working in the same area that you are.  I must say that my collaborations have hugely impacted how much I've enjoyed doing research.  I am at a school that values research, but even there I have not found many people to work with, so most of my collaboration is with people elsewhere.  We work a lot by email.  The email allows us to get some momentum, so that when I do have a chance to visit one of my collaborators, often we can be fairly productive in a limited time.

Two things that I love about collaboration: (1) my coauthors often have great ideas, and our papers end up much better than if I had written them myself and (2) it's a lot more fun working with someone, and it's easier to stay encouraged.  So that's what I recommend that you aim for.  If you want to know how to squeeze more research time or productivity (just working by yourself) out of your current schedule, then I recommend that you follow the advice of aeismail and consult a Personal Productivity site.


What is the best English equivalent for the Spanish 'Profesor Contratado Doctor'?

It is often difficult to map (academic) ranks between countries and languages. There might be subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) differences, that make a perfect mapping impossible.

I would write something like: "Associate Professor (Profesor Contratado Doctor)". In that way you provide your official title (no confusion), and a title the reader can relate to (clarity).


What to do if accused of cheating/misconduct at university?

The following is general advice for what to do when you are the subject of an allegation of wrong-doing at university.  This advice is general enough to encompass most allegations, including academic wrong-doing that does not rise to the level of formal "academic misconduct", but also including academic misconduct or sexual misconduct.  For minor matters this advice can be streamlined and the process is less formal, so you should adapt as required depending on the severity of the matter.  I will assume here that the allegation is sufficiently serious that a reasonable degree of formalism and caution is appropriate.  For simplicity, most of my answer will assume that we are talking about a public university in a Western country (e.g., the US, England, Australia, etc.).  Universities have procedures in place that create an orderly process for determining the nature of the allegation, obtaining relevant evidence, hearing the matter and making a determination.  Consequently, the following are some general rules you should follow to deal with the matter.

Rule 1 - Stay calm and don't pre-empt the process
Many questions on Academia.SE concerning accusations of misconduct are written in a tone of panic, asking how the questioner should "prove their innocence" at the outset of an accusation.  Often the questions are posted when an accusation is first made, and often the questioner is not even familiar with the specific details of the allegation.  Notwithstanding this limited information, questioners often wish to take immediate action to "prove their innocence" in relation to what they speculate to be the details of the allegation or the evidence relating to the matter.
All of that is the wrong thing to do.  The first thing to do if you are accused of wrong-doing is to remain calm and remind yourself that there is a process for dealing with misconduct allegations.  Public universities are subject to due process requirements for allegations of wrong-doing, and so they are required to operate under the principle that you are "innocent until proven guilty".  They are also required to give you written details of the complaint against you, specifying exactly what it is you are alleged to have done, and they must also tell you the evidence against you.  (Collecting this evidence may be an ongoing process, so it might not all be present at the start of the allegation anyway.)  At the start of the process, you are under no obligation to prove anything.  There is no sense in speculating on what it is that you are alleged to have done, or what the evidence of the allegation might be, prior to being given this information in the formal process.  Any misconduct process that comports with the requirements of due-process will provide you with a written statement of the allegation against you, and show you the evidence that supports that allegation.

Rule 2 - Read the rules, understand them, and follow the process
When you have been accused of misconduct, you need to read the university rules for the type of misconduct you are accused of, and the procedures for dealing with this.  It is advantageous for you to be as familiar with these rules as you can be, so that you know your rights and obligations under those rules.  Read all the relevant university policies relating to the process you are involved in, and identify the requirement to provide you with the allegation made against you, and the relevant points where you are given the opportunity to respond to allegations.
Universities should all have misconduct procedures that provide due process to the person accused of wrong-doing.  Legal requirements for this differ according to the country and jurisdiction, and whether the university is private or public. (Public universities are generally bound by constitutional rules that are operative on the government.  For example, in US public universities, the defendent is generally entitled to notice of the allegations against them and a description of the evidence for those allegations --- see e.g., Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education 294 F.2d 150.)  The most basic requirements of due process are that you are entitled to know the details of the allegation against you and the evidence of those allegations.  You are not required to respond to an allegation until you have been supplied with this information and have had a reasonable chance to review and digest it.  At some point in the process you will be given an opportunity to submit your own description of events and your own evidence.

Rule 3 - Deal professionally and courteously with the reviewer for the matter
For any kind of formal misconduct matter there will be one or more staff members at the university who act as the reviewer of the matter.  This involves invesetigating the matter, making findings of fact from the evidence, and making a determination.  Depending on the severity of the matter, for cases of alleged academic misconduct this might be one of the academics in your department (e.g., the Head of Department or some other senior person) or it might be an academic you have not met before, or it might be another staff member in one of the administrative parts of the university.  For cases of alleged sexual misconduct the reviewer will usually be one of the administrative staff of the university (e.g., an officer from the "equity" team).
You should deal professionally and courteously with the reviewer and remember that it is their job to investigate the matter and make a determination.  Remember that the allegation is not being made by the reviewer, so unless they are acting in an especially unreasonable or biased manner, there is no cause to be upset with them.  Likewise, while you may be upset and in need of some validation for yourself (if you are wrongly accused of something) the reviewer is not your therapist or support person.  If the reviewer is an academic that you know (e.g., one of your lecturers) then you need to allow them to remain at arms length during the process.  Standard rules of professional conduct apply --- maintain a calm and disciplined manner, even if you are upset.
Due process requirements generally require the reviewer of the matter to be unbiased.  If the reviewer engages with you in an unreasonably hostile way, or shows other signs of bias, you should make a written note of this (including all relevant details) and you may be able to have the matter assigned to another reviewer.  There is little value in getting into an argument with the reviewer --- if you perceive them to be biased then you should document your reasons for this and ask for a new reviewer.

Rule 4 - Do not give your evidence until you are required to do so
A common error when dealing with proceedings for misconduct is for an accused party to rush to head off the allegation by giving information and evidence to the reviewer prior to knowing exactly what they are accused of.  Often this occurs due to panic, and due to the (usually misguided) view that the process can be "nipped in the bud" if only you explain yourself immediately.  As stated above, due process (and university rules) generally entitles you to be given a written statement setting out the details of the allegation against you, and the evidence for that allegation.  In matters that are serious enough for a formal process, always ensure that you do not provide any statement or evidence unless and until you have been provided with this statement.  The statement provided to you should clearly state what you are alleged to have done wrong, and the evidence that supports this allegation.  If you are still unclear on what you are accused of, seek clarification.
It is not uncommon that you may be "invited" to go and speak to the reviewer at the start of the matter (e.g., when an allegation is first raised) before you have been provided with the full details of the complaint.  If you like, this can be used as an opportunity to find out information about the complaint and find out the process for handling the complaint.  However, if you are asked to provide a statement or evidence prior to receiving the written statement of complaint (including just "having a chat" about it) you should decline, and tell the relevant officials that you will respond after you have been provided with the statement of complaint against you.  If you are called in for a meeting or hearing prior to receiving this statement, you should either decline to attend, or if you decide to attend you should focus on eliciting information about the complaint.  If you are asked for your version of events, or your evidence, do not provide any information, and simply state that you will respond after you have had an opportunity to review the written statement of complaint against you. (Also, do not respond contemporaneously in the meeting if they give you this statement; take at least a day or two to review and think about the matter.)
In the event that your university either will not provide you with a written statement of the allegation against you, or expects you to provide pleadings or evidence prior to this, you should generally refuse, and put the university on notice that you expect lawful due-process.  If you have read the university rules then you should also be able to cite sections of the rules that entitle you to this information.

Rule 5 - If you are correctly accused, admit what you did and take your punishment
Once you have been provided with the details of the allegation against you, you will be able to determine if it is correct.  Notwithstanding the importance of due process, I take the view that if you are accused of some wrong-doing that you have in fact done, you should have the honesty and integrity to admit to that wrong-doing and take the resulting penalty, even if it might not have been proven.  This is a good way to develop good character and hold yourself accountable for your actions. Others may take a more legalistic view, but I would recommend this principle.
In some cases the allegation against you will be accurate but there may be some mitigating factors that are not included, and you may wish to draw these to the attention of the reviewer.  For example, you might have broken a rule without realising that what you were doing was against the rules.  Alternatively there might be some other mitigating factors that you wish to raise.  You can make a submission admitting to the wrong-doing you are accused of and also setting out any relevant mitigating factors that you think should be taken account in determining your punishment.

Rule 6 - If you are wrongly accused, use due process protections to protect yourself
If you are accused of something you did not do then you will want to provide a response to the complaint where you set out your own submissions on the issue at hand and your own evidence pertaining to this issue.  The details will depend on the particulars of your case.  While a university disciplinary process is less formal than a legal proceeding, the same general advice applies.  You will want to give a clear and detailed written response, including the strongest evidence you can muster in your favour.  This might include statements from other witnesses, emails or other documentary evidence, etc.  Try to set our your response in a clear and structured way, make your evidence clear, and avoid repitition unless it is necessary to stress important facts.  It is generally a good idea to give your evidence in written form (at least in the first instance), to make sure it is accurate and clear.
University disciplinary processes usually use the "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of evidence" standard for fact-finding, so although there is some onus of proof on the complainant, it is not usually necessary for the complainant to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt".  In most cases, the outcome of the matter will hinge on the strength of the evidence for the assertions made by the complainant and the respondent.  In some university disciplinary processes you may also wish to scrutinise the reviewer to ensure that they are acting in an objective and unbiased way.  If you have reason to believe that the reviewer is biased against you, you should ensure that you collect relevant evidence of this and make notes of instances where you were treated with bias.

Rule 7 - Respect the confidentiality of the process (and expect the same from the other parties)
A general rule of disciplinary processes at the university is that there is an expectation of confidentiality, at least until findings are made.  Participants in the complaint process are also usually protected from "retaliation".
While circumstances differ depending on the subject of the complaint and the identity of the parties, it is generally a bad idea to contact the complainant outside of the complaint process, since this can be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate or harass the complainant into withdrawal of their complaint.  (This is especially so for allegations of sexual misconduct or physical violence; in those cases contact with the complainant should be made only with extreme care.)  If you believe you can "clear this up" with the complainant with a simple conversation then you should make this request by email and give them the option of whether or not they wish to meet with you, and the circumstances of your meeting (e.g., do they wish to bring a support person, etc.).  Offers to meet with the complainant can also be made through the university reviewer for the matter, though there is no guarantee they will agree to this.
If the complainant or another party breaches the confidentiality of the complaint (e.g., bad-mouthing you around the university) then you should remind the reviewer of your expectation of confidentiality in the process.  If the complainant publicly defames you with false allegations then this can also give rise to a cause-of-action for defamation; in this latter event you may wish to seek legal advice.


How to build a better positive image of yourself to your Ph.D. advisor

If that's the first time you've copied a problem down incorrectly, I'd bet you're the type of student whose conscientious work is obvious to your advisor and other professors in your department (whom you should also be developing relationships with, even at this early stage, btw). Also, keep in mind that admissions committees (especially in departments that can attract "famous" professors) don't casually accept students; if you weren't cut out for it, you probably wouldn't be there to begin with.
In any case, no reasonable advisor would expect a first-year student to get every fact right or never make mistakes. In the unlikely case your advisor does happen to have those expectations and/or does think, based on two inconsequential mistakes, that you're not cut out for the program, you have plenty of time to find a new advisor, which is not at all unusual. More importantly, it sounds like you may be assuming the advisor thinks these things, since you don't mention any specific reaction he had that indicates as much. But even if he did give some feedback or correction, keep in mind that giving feedback and critique is what they're there for, and receiving that critique and advice is what you're there for. It's crucial for survival in grad school that students not take criticism personally—after all, if you're planning to be an academic at least, proposing some idea and having other people critique it is pretty much what you'll be doing for the rest of your career. If your advisor did give some clear indication he's displeased with your progress, you might consider explaining the circumstances or somehow remediating the situation—but if there wasn't an explicit indication (and even if there was) he's probably forgotten about the whole thing by now. You're likely better off just keeping on with the hard work and reminding yourself as often as you can that you belong there and that all grad students who aren't egomaniacs are constantly wracked with self-doubt and that you're probably doing just fine.
But here's the most important thing, which I don't think most grad students (of which I am one) realize soon enough*: the professors are there because they want to teach students! If you showed up and knew every single thing perfectly before your first year was over, their lives would be pointless (slight exaggeration, but still). Being a professor is about teaching people things they didn't know before and guiding students in their acquisition of knowledge, so don't feel bad when that occasionally happens. A good advisor will genuinely enjoy feeling like they're actually contributing to your development from student to colleague, and your making mistakes early on is part of that process.

*I didn't figure it out on my own either; I was lucky that someone very wise told me this when I was distraught after my first teaching evaluation (which in retrospect was actually full of constructive feedback that I took as harsh criticism simply because it included room to improve).


A professor has offered to send me a hard copy of his new book. Would it be rude to ask for a PDF file instead?

It is a question of framing. Frame it as something that is good for him, not just for you. I'd write something along the lines of:

  Thank you very much for your kind offer. I'm indeed  very interested in the subject of book X. It probably is easier and cheaper for you if you just send me a PDF, and as I am someone who reads mostly on a screen anyway, I would be equally happy with an electronic version.

(And then you might or might not mention your postal address anyway, but in any case stress again that it is up to him to decide.)

In fact, I have had such situations before (people asking me for a copy of my dissertation [which I would have send them for free in print], but who also mailed that they preferred a PDF).


There's two opposing forces here:

You're probably not doing research if you can say exactly what you are going to do beforehand in the research proposal. At the heart of research is exploration. Hence it is expected that you demonstrate some agency and adapt the research as you explore the topic more.
On the other hand, the people who fund you are funding you to work in the area of the proposal. Switching to a completely disconnected topic on a whim is (generally) not an option.

  How far can research deviate from the original research proposal?

This is difficult to give a concrete answer to and it will differ from fund to fund. Most generally, if you can show the funding body a path from what you proposed to what you ended up doing (i.e., you can show that your intent was to follow the proposal, but you discovered new evidence that a better alternative was possible and you followed that alternative instead), then I think you're on safe ground.

In other cases, it will depend entirely on what your funding body is looking for and how they justify their funds to their bosses. You will have to try understand what the objectives of the funders are: is it publications, creation of a product, teaching and dissemination, contributing towards some high-level national/EU directive, etc.? Will your new direction likewise satisfy those objectives under what was originally agreed in the proposal? These are important questions. (Even if you stuck steadfastly to the topic proposed, groking the motives of your funders and what they will look for during reviews is vital for success. If you understand these motives well enough, then as a side result, you'll have the answer as to how much deviation is acceptable or even desirable.)


Getting into a Bioethics/Philosophy Master's Program

There are a couple of tricks to getting good LORs.

You can ask more than one person, you know.
Approach the person and ask (by email if you like) whether s/he would feel comfortable writing you a LOR.  If s/he thinks the letter would come out lukewarm, s/he can say something tactful, such as "I think you would do better to ask someone who ... (e.g. knows your work better than I do)
Send the person an unofficial transcript
Give the person an outline of what aspects of you should be emphasized for the particular application

I think the Caribbean is fine; also a reference from your workplace is fine.  Do supplement it with a purely academic one.


How to get the most benefit out of a teaching consultation?

Ideally you want to focus on teaching components that you would not ordinarily notice yourself.

I do not have previous experience with teaching consultations, but I can suggest some facets of teaching that are difficult to improve without others' feedback. Especially when you are speaking, there are things you miss because you are focusing on choosing your words.

Body language and conveyed impressions
Mannerisms, e.g. 'like...', 'um', 'ah'
Volume and pace of speaking
Eye direction (are you looking at the students, or do you look upwards when thinking?)
Students' facial expressions and body language (what do they think of this specific class and why?)

Conversely, there are some facets of your teaching you will notice by yourself in time, and are not particularly benefited by feedback:

The clarity of your material (diagrams, slideshows, images). It may be more worthwhile to review this in your own time.
Which parts of your content are difficult for students
Whether students feel confident to interact
What lesson structures work better
Students' overall feelings about the course (assuming you have course feedback forms)

I hope you make the most out of this opportunity!


Here's my advice to you, as a long-time member of editorial boards and, more recently, (co-)Editor-in-Chief: Ask!

Many of us get thrown into this role at one point or other in our lives, and think that we can figure things out, but the reality is that there will be many cases where you simply don't know for sure what to do. In that case, ask around. Ask your older colleagues who've had this role for a while. Ask your editor-in-chief. (In fact, you should have probably asked the questions in your post to your EiC to begin with!) Ask the other members of the editorial board. Don't try to muddle through by yourself, but use the resources you have and assume that the people around you are there to help you figure out what to do.

In addition to this, here are a couple of guidelines you should also follow:

Act ethical: If it is conceivable that a reviewer you have in mind might have a conflict of interest on the paper, don't assign them. If you could possibly be conceived as having a conflict of interest yourself, ask the Editor-in-Chief to assign the paper to someone else.
More than anything else, the reputation of the journal (and, by extension, your reputation as an editor) rests on whether you turn around papers within the timeline the journal strives for. You will frequently assign papers to reviewers who don't respond to your invitation; or who say that they will do the review, but then don't end up doing in a timely manner or at all. Don't let things drag on. Email them again. If they don't respond, call them. If you can't get a commitment from them, unassign them and assign the paper to another reviewer with the request to turn around the review in a shorter timeline (whatever time you have left after the delay). That will occasionally involve calling in a favor from a friend, and sometimes doing the review yourself. In any case, don't let things sit forever -- problems with timeliness don't tend to work themselves out magically.
If you disagree with a reviewer when you make a decision (say, because the reviewer writes a rather short review and recommends publication; but you feel that the review is not of sufficient quality and want to discard it and instead go with the other reviewer who was more critical), then explain your decision. In fact, explain any of your decisions to both the authors and the Editor-in-Chief. People sometimes think of editorial boards as composed of these inscrutable people who nefariously make decisions in smoke-filled rooms based on their current mood; but in reality, editors just do the best they can with the information they have, and then forget to explain their thinking. In other words, whatever it is that's on your mind, communicate it to the people who might want to know, rather than letting them guess.


How do you find out if academia is the right path for you?

You will get a more helpful answer if you add the field you work in.  Perhaps leaving the question general, but "sneaking in" some info on your field.
I have worked in several industries and never been bored.  Certainly more routine jobs do exist.  But I would not exaggerate the stereotype of industry boring or even of academic research being exciting (it is not, always).  New products, initiatives, markets, etc give many private sector jobs plenty of excitement.
I urge you not to do the Ph.D. unless you see yourself as top 25-50% in your field (a higher percentage correlating to subjects with more industrial hiring of Ph.D.'s).  It is very important to realize that there is a glut of Ph.D.'s on the market.  At least in STEM, the number of doctoral slots is determined by the amount of (mostly federal) funding for research.  It is NOT determined by the number of high paying jobs needing graduates.  [I laugh at C&EN exhorting more kids to go into STEM in the same issue they talk about the intense competition at job fairs...and chemistry is actually better than math or physics.]

This is not to say don't do it. But go in with your eyes wide open.  At a minimum talk to kids looking for jobs in their final year.  (Or about advisor relations, thesis writing, etc.)  I do think the experience can be OK but you really need to look out for number 1.  Don't just do it because you don't know what you want to do, prof talked you into it, etc.  At a minimum, do a job search in parallel (you don't need to let each "side" know you are doing this).