It sounds like you're thinking of your thesis like a book, and indeed in some countries/disciplines, at least a few copies to get produced as such.

For most theses that I see these days, however, the notion of "back cover" is entirely meaningless.  There is an electronic document that starts with a cover page, which you might consider a "front cover" if you want to, but the end of the document has nothing in particular to distinguish it, except that you come to the end of the references and/or appendices.  Moreover, many institutions have fairly strong requirements for thesis formatting, and in most that I have encountered there is no place for an author bio.

As such, I think that adding an author bio would not make sense, unless it is specifically part of a format that you are required to use by your institution.


Do I have to mention the name of the answer holder within my program?

Basically, it depends on "the usual suspects." The less widely known the more you need a cite. The more substantial or original the thing, the more you need a cite.

Anything you could easily get from a simple Google search and that appears on multiple web sites and in multiple introductory textbooks, is probably fair use. "How to use a loop" in a computer language is clearly not something you need to provide a cite for.

If you wind up using a lot of small things from a single source, that also merits at least a "thanks." For example, if you used a lot of things out of a standard "classical" text book on the subject, that might be a good thing to mention. That will reduce questions like "why does all your code look like Knuth's code in his text?"

Things that you need to dig harder for may be more of a grey area. An implementation of a standard search algorithm, for example, might need citation. So if you pulled something from the book series Numerical Recipes you might need to at least put a note in saying where you lifted the source code. It's like quoting a chunk of text from a source in that case.

Less widely known or less standard algorithms might need citation. That may be subject dependent or journal dependent. So if you are publishing something in a journal related to uncertainty analysis, maybe you don't need to explain what a Kalman filter is. It may be standard knowledge for such an audience. If you were publishing in a journal related to AI, maybe they will be less familiar with it and need a cite to a basic explanation. Especially if you are providing an implementation, especially if you borrowed the source code for that implementation.

If you used some research article's result then certainly you need to cite it. For example, if somebody has invented a new way to accomplish some task, and it has some new feature such as being faster or more secure or something, you definitely need to cite it.


Should I apply for grad school at higher-ranked institutions besides the one I am working at now?

You should apply to programs you are interested in working in, regardless of their ranking.

If you are worried about upsetting your current supervisor by letting them know you might be interested in working elsewhere, consider this: If your supervisor won't allow you to apply to other programs they are a jerk who doesn't have your best interests in mind, and you should work with someone else.

A good advisor will write you recommendation letters for any program you are interested in and let you make the decision, because it's your decision, not theirs. They are free to be disappointed if you decide to go elsewhere because they value your contributions to their lab, but they are abusive if they threaten to withhold recommendations to keep you in place. If you trust your current advisor enough to work with them in the future as a graduate student, you should also expect that they will be willing to write recommendations for you for any programs you are interested in.

That said, it would be both impolite and misguided for you to rank the opportunities ahead of time. You should not attend an institution just because it is "top XX" on some measure of rankings: you should attend the institution where you are most likely to learn and produce good work. A key element of that is the selection of your advisor. Working with a helpful advisor who has your best interests in mind is going to be a far better learning experience for you, regardless of "rank" of the institution.


I need to change PhD topics. Should I pursue one of my advisor's ideas, or one of my own?

Big Fat Note On Timing: First and foremost here, make sure to changing your topic is allowed by your supervisor. Then your supervisor will check the time you have left and will point out if you can do it or not. You don't want to change a topic while your supervisor do not know about it.

Answer On Changing the PhD Topic With Your Supervisor Agreement

Ok, I did my PhD in CS as well; also was very close to change it for two times as my supervisor was not as an expert I thought he would be. So here my takes on changing your topic as a CS PhD student:

1.What you have gained so far?: Without comparing yourself to anyone else, are you deep down happy with your progress and how much did you gained, knowledge wise, so far? The conclusion in this point brings me to the second point.

2. Problem is Environment or Yourself?: After thinking about how much you have done, if the sadness relates to the environment (such as supervisor) or yourself (such as the issue of focus).

2.1 If the problem is you: If the problem is you then, changing your topic does not change a thing. Now you might say well "I will change myself"; this is not as easy you might think and you might need professional help on this. If you see you need help and the supervisor is not helping either or even recognizing that you are having an issue, then you need to think seriously on how to get help. This is very important, as you might get depressed without doing anything wrong. You see what I'm trying to say here?

2.2 Problem Is Supervisor: It is more common as you might think, so in this case, if you have the ability to do the PhD, then YOU need to inform the supervisor about the changes and YOU need to decide what you want to do. This might get ugly at times, because if the supervisor does not know the topic and tells you, your thesis is total rubbish, you should know "well I'm submitting it and defending it regardless". So basically, take the control of the situation from start to finish.

2.3 Problem is Topic: To be honest I doubt it, because most of the time the problem is based on the first two sub points. Anyway if this is the case, then change the topic. Don't listen to supervisor to do a topic in a field he/she did not publish a thing for the last 5 years. Be honest to yourself and your supervisor ability before choosing it. This should be also discussed with your supervisor as well, don't accept anything without knowledge. I recommend to choose a topic that your supervisor is known for. If your supervisor works on software testing and you want to do a topic on code generation, things might not go well.


Appropriate to say "Nice to meet you" over a phone interview?

There are surely plenty of alternatives.  "It's a pleasure to speak with you."  "Thanks for taking the time to speak with me."  And so on.

However, even if you do say "Nice to meet you", the most that will happen is someone will say "Though I guess we're not really meeting, are we?  Ha-ha-ha."  And you'll say "I guess not, ha-ha-ha" and chuckle politely for about half a second, and then move on.  Nobody will care or remember, and it will have no effect on the outcome of the interview.


How strict are listed minimum requirements for admission to a graduate degree program?

No direct conversion of grades is possible between various systems. So, you will have to argue your way into their program, by presenting your results in the best light possible and making a convincing case that you would fulfill their requirements if you were in their system. Because in the end, your application will be judged by people, not computer. At least if you make it clear that your system is quite different.

One of the ways to do it is, as you started to do, by comparing percentiles: figure out what their grade requirement equals to in terms of quantile, and start from there. “I am in the top 25% of my school, which is equivalent to a grade of XX (based on these official statistics)”. That sort of reasoning.


Consider

The Double Helix. A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure
of DNA. James D. Watson. Atheneum, New York, 1968. xvi + 238 pp.,
illus.

It's available in many places online in many editions, along  with reviews and annotations.


Should I use bold fonts to highlight particular words in SOP?

You are overthinking this. It's not going to make a difference whether or not you boldface names or other parts. Focus on the content of your statement, instead of spending your mental energy on issues such as boldfacing some text.


Is this level of citation acceptable in a dissertation?

It sounds like the way you did the reference was fine and perfectly standard practice in mathematics. And I doubt Turnitin is remotely useful for mathematics anyway.
The more important question is whether what you did meets the expectations of your committee, and you'll have to ask them that.


How widespread is the use of "last author = teacher" on student papers?

As pointed out by others in the comments, this is very common in my field (Operations Research); at my institution this is the norm and is common in other disciplines.
A professor told me during my PhD that the marginal benefit of having their name first was small compared to having the student's name first.  Moreover, papers coming from a masters or PhD usually deserve to have the student's name first anyway.
I'm sure the community will have various opinions but I find this a good practice unless there's a clear contribution level issue.

Updates:
It is common to place students first then rest of contributors in alphabetical order. Further, as @BryanKrause points out (comment), it may be beneficial to not have your name first if it helps make the case you're capable of supervising the research process.


Can you teach in higher education with a master's degree?

In the unedited post, you mentioned portuguese, so I'll take a chance and guess brazilian. It is statistically likely, you don't seem to be from portugal, but that still leaves portuguese speaking african countries...

Considering public universities in/near SP, RJ, MG, the whole south and some capitals, you won't even be able to apply, they require PhDs all around, with high competition. In the federal universities farthest away from these centers (like AP, RO, RR) a masters would be enough in most cases. These openings are probably available even with the recession, not many candidates willing to relocate, and, without PhD, the salary will be kinda low... (~ 4k BRL)

On the other hand, if you go to the private universities, yes, totally. With the exception to some of the most prestigious (like PUC, Mackenzie, etc), that require PhDs.  In the smaller ones, most of the professors do not even have masters. Low pay, no research and tons of courses tho...

If you combine both and consider a small private university farthest away from the economic centers, they might not even consider you, saying that you are overqualified....


It doesn't really matter. Adopt the style that the journal or conference you are submitting to seems to prefer if there are no instructions given by the venue.


Is it ethical for students to consume Adderall during university courses, if they don't have ADHD?

Academia is not a competition, neither is school. It's about education and knowledge. Neither comes and goes with a few pills.

Applying the anti-doping rules from sports is therefore nonsense. What applies are the common workplace anti-drug rules.


pros and cons of one's own papers covered by media

The main effect of media coverage is increased visibility. In case of very controversial research that might be considered a con, as it might invite harassment or people running with unsubstantiated and possibly dangerous claims. In most cases, however, I'd see it as a pro. You get to communicate about your research to groups that would otherwise not have seen it, effectively doing a form of outreach and educating the public on cutting-edge research.

Other pros:

It can be fun - especially if well-received.
It can be good practice in communicating to non-experts.
It improves your professional visibility as well as the visibility of the specific research project, and the visibility of your institution. It's hard to measure this effect I suppose, but it might produce new opportunities to e.g. give an invited talk somewhere, or lead to students being interested in working with you.
Your employer or funding agency might also like seeing this kind of non-citation impact.
At least some US institutions would consider media coverage of your research as evidence of service (along with committee service, traditional outreach and so on) for tenure evaluations. One big reason to have this factor in to the decision is that such activities help promote public awareness of the work that takes place there.
Some members of the audience might find the research an appealing answer to "why are we funding these people with our taxes again?" in a way that wouldn't happen if we only ever communicate with other experts through pay-walled journals.

Other cons:

It does take some time. (It's almost always a negligible amount compared to the time you spent on the research in the first place, but busy people are busy.)
Misleading reporting could be hard to deal with in some cases. If you work with a university or journal press office on a press release you can usually make sure that the release itself is accurate, but then a game of telephone may ensue as different outlets pick it up. The risk seems to be higher the more impactful the result, as the media coverage after the press conference about the OPERA neutrino anomaly clearly showed, or if the research is politically controversial - e.g. climate change.
Attempting to maximize coverage could lead to overhyping the research, which eventually erodes trust in academics as a whole.

So overall, I think the only real con for most regular-stakes research is that it could use up a single digit number of hours. Hence, I'd suggest trying it at least once. For
 research that's potentially more controversial it would make sense to first discuss the likelihood of adverse consequences with a more experienced colleague in your field.


postdoc position does not require letter of recommendation only contact details of referees. Should I still provide the letters?

You do not need to provide any letters of reference.

If you do they may well be ignored as they ask for the contact details of 2 referees. This means that they will contact those referees directly and get the information required in their own format as they wish.


"Semester units" are up to the definition of the school. Some people call a "unit" one course; some people call a "unit" a fraction of a course.
For example, just among the US schools that I have been affiliated with (or visited for an extended period of time):

Yale: 1 semester course = 1 unit
Harvard: 1 semester course = 1/2 unit
Princeton: 1 semester course = 1 unit
MIT: 1 semester course = 9 or 12 units
UConn: 1 semester course = 3 or 4 "credit hours"

So you definitely need to consult the individual school catalog to see what system they're using.


Is it it bad to become a part-time student in my 4th year and do a 5th year in my undergrad if i plan on applying for grad school?

It seems from`

I reached out to a couple schools who are my top picks, and they told
me they have no problem with part-time studies,

that you've answered your own question.  Besides, you can't change the past, but only the future.  Therefore, my advice is to stop "beating yourself up".  School can be difficult at the best of times, and things have certainly been hard during this past year of covid.
At one point in your question you talk about classes that you found challenging because of your background.  So, if those classes will be important to your future, it might make sense to do some independent reading on the topics that are causing you troubles.  Sometimes, revisiting something can make a world of difference.
Things have a way of working out.  Be sure to reach out to people in person, as well as over the internet.  You may find that a lot of successful people have also faced challenges.  Knowing that can help a lot in getting past hurdles.
Spring is coming.  So is vaccine. Things will start to get back to normal soon.  You've got years ahead of you.  Don't worry too much about the exact school you get into.  Find a spot that you think you'll enjoy, and plan to enjoy it and learn a lot.  Sometimes, just making the choice to enjoy something (even with challenges) can make a big difference.
Good luck.


Who to ask for letters of recommendation when changing fields after PhD?

The purpose of letters of recommendation is to confirm your research skills and vision.  Since you're changing fields, you really don't have anybody who can speak to your skills in the new field yet, but you may have people who can speak to your skills in your old field and how they think those may be relevant to the new field.

Much more important than your letters of recommendation, however, is establishing contact with the people that you want to work with in your new field.  Postdoc hiring is generally less like grad school and more like seeking a permanent position in academia or industry: you are not likely to be hired for your potential to develop new skills, but rather for your ability to rapidly start contributing in areas of interest to the lab you will join.

What you want to look for is thus an overlap between the two that will allow you to "pivot", contributing with your old skills while learning new skills. If you're making a complete and total switch (e.g., field botany to femtosecond laser circuits), then this might be pretty hard to find.  More often, however, there is an overlap that can make it beneficial for both you and the sort of lab you want to join.  For example, if your thesis was on mechanical stress models and you want to move into biology, then you might look for people working on anatomical problems where your stress models might be useful to apply.

If at all possible, you should get introductions to people you are interested in working with in person at a conference or electronically by third parties known to both of you.  Any PI is likely to be constantly getting cold-call emails applying for postdocs from dubious applicants, and you want something that will make you be placed into the category of "person worth replying to" rather than "spam folder."  Here is where your conversations with the high-profile professor may be valuable, if that professor is willing to make such introductions.  Your letters of recommendation are then less about making your case than about confirming that you are who you present yourself to be.


Mention MOOCs in email to potential PHD supervisor?

It is possible to be both brief and comprehensive.

Be brief in the main e-mail: completed X MOOCs from established institutes.

Refer to an appendix for a complete list.  In that case, if the potential supervisor cares at all, s/he can glance through the list to see if s/he is at all impressed.


Can I ask for a manuscript status after I submitted a revised version?

You can always ask but from my experience you will just a get a copy&paste answer with the status from the journal website.

Putting too much pressure (many emails) on the editor might also have negative effects on the outcome of the decision (if the manuscript is a borderline case).

Concerning your specific situtation with the grant application: You can put the paper as "in revision" into the grant application.

@ "Can I ask for the manuscript's status before I'm sent the answer?" - You will just get an answer with the official status. I doubt that they will give away their decision via email before the official decision.


What are the salary bands specifically for lecturer/senior lecturer/reader/professor in the UK?

How the titles map onto the grading is not fixed precisely - I've seen it vary by a couple of points across the country, but my institution has lecturer as 30-43, SL/Reader as 44-52 (yes, 52 - not covered by that UCU scale). Professors are not on that scale.


How do I tell professors I am no longer applying to graduate school?

You have a number of choices at your disposal:

In person. I would recommend this as it offers the most rich (in terms of feedback) setting for you to explain your situation, offer your gratitude for their help thus far, and secure the notion that you would be revisiting your graduate applications down the road given your new job. However, given the fact that you may not be near your university, this option has its drawbacks.
Through a Phone Call. Second to an in-person conversation is a phone call. You can receive more feedback in terms of their reaction to the news through audio cues. At the same time generating a more organic flow to the conversation.

  Now I'm at a loss over how to tell my professors I'm putting a halt on my applications. I feel shitty for making them write letters that I won't use, and worse, I know I will be asking them again in a few years to apply again.

  Is there a polite way of emailing them not only do I not need the letters anymore, but to also hang onto them because I will need them again?

As for email, here is something to consider:

  Dear [Professor X],

  I wanted to thank you for the time and effort that you have put into
  writing a letter of recommendation for my graduate studies. I really
  appreciate the help and advice you have given me through the process.

  I recently received an offer to work at [insert company here].
  Although I had not considered it before, this position would allow me
  to [insert reason here]. I have discussed this with [potentially other
  professors, significant other] and I decided that this would be the
  best move for me in the next couple of years.

  This does not mean that I do not have any aspirations to attend
  graduate school however. I understand how you may be disappointed in
  my decision, but I am hoping that you would support me if I were to
  postpone my graduate studies and reapply down the road. I am wondering
  if you would still be inclined to help me.

  Please let me know of any comments or reservations you may have about
  this. Thank you.

  Respectfully Yours,

  [Your Name]

As for your questions:

  I can't tell if my email should be a be a casual heads up or a weighty explanation of how I fucked up.

Keep it simple and to the point. You did not fuck up, you are making the best (relatively speaking) decision for yourself at this point in time.

  Is it common for people to give up on their applications like this?

No hard data, but people quit programs for a multitude of reasons. You deciding to pursue a position is not the end of the world nor a unique situation.


"This paper has been submitted/published in" stamp on arxiv

arXiv does not add anything like this automatically.


Just ask SCImage how to pronounce their name. There's a contact email in their About Us page.

In the mean time, just choose whatever pronunciation you like, and tell your students you're not sure what the right pronunciation is.

Myself, I would say it's "sci" like in science + "imago" with a hard g (like in "egg") - and extend the i as though it's doubled. So kind of like "scyimaggo".


They need to give a citation, but, if it is permitted to quote the entire paragraph, then they don't need permission from the other authors.
Whether it is permitted or not is a question of copyright and fair-use exemptions. If they still hold copyright jointly, then each of them needs to give permission. If your journal holds it then I see little problem as the journal can grant a license. Otherwise permission should be sought from the copyright holder for a long quotation.
Even if the old paragraph is paraphrased rather than quoted, a citation is required. Otherwise it is self-plagiarism. In that case, the copyright issue would disappear as there is no "copying".
But I don't see any reason that the other authors on the old paper need to become co-authors on this one. Certainly an individual can extend old joint work as a single author.


Efficient way to find conferences in related disciplines?

I am not sure if it is allowed to post links so I will keep my answer more general. I would start by finding conferences...like "conference for machine learning" or something similiar. Try to find good conferences that way, look how often they took place, how many people attend etc. After that you can look at interesting individual papers, look what they have done...if it interests you, check their sources and find more conferences, repeat.

The best way for me works by looking at the proceedings of good conferences, especially the videos. Most of the time they explain it so that almost anyone can understand it, which is often not the case while reading paper only(rather complex papers you need to read more than once to understand what they are doing).

Additionally you can look at journals. For example "Journal for machine learning" or "journal non-linear aerodynamics"...journals will have have different names but google is good enough to switch some words for you. Check the impact factor and compare them. Pick the one you like the most and read all the titles...spiral your way down to papers that you actually find interesting.

There are several websites that let you filter conferences or journals by topics and also rank them via some score i.e. impact factor.

At least for machine learning I can tell you the most relevant publishers are IEEE, ACM, Springer...they all have their own websites where you can apply very good filters to find what you are looking for


Is it standard practice to make sure that multiple, numbered citations occuring together are ordered?

In my experience, there is no particular necessity or requirement to ensure that numbered citations go in order.  Certainly, I have never personally encountered an instance with an IEEE or ACM publication (which use numerical order) where the publisher actually cared if this was the case.

That said, it certainly is much tidier to order the citations in a set, and doing so is very simple to do, so I often will do so if I notice they are out of order.

That said, there is one case in which I will not order the citations, and that is if a citation cluster has some citations that are more important than others.  In that case, I will always keep the citations ordered in decreasing importance instead, just to make it a little more likely for the reader to figure out which is the most important one.


I suppose you could list it with an appropriate comment, like "expected, Apr 2016 -" but I wouldn't say it's advisable.  It seems unlikely to me that any graduate program will accept you because you will have had some a little teaching experience by the time you start.  Presumably you were offered a TA position because some people in the department thought highly of you.  At least one of these people should be writing you a recommendation, and will mention it if they think it is important.  What's more important is their evidence/explanation of why they thought highly enough of you to offer you such a position in the first place.


Mention marking duty for a course in an early academic career CV

You can mention it, but there is no benefit to doing so.  Your marking and grading experience is not important to hiring decisions.


There is, frankly, no "ideal" age for starting a Ph.D. There's not even a "better" time. All that is really important is demonstrating that you have an aptitude for doing research in the proposed field of study. If you can demonstrate that at age 20, great; if you've had a change of heart at 30 or even 40, and decide you want to go back to school, that's cool, too.

However, there is an advantage in doing it sooner rather than later—adjusting back to "student" habits is easier when you're closer to finishing your undergraduate than when you're older. It's also usually easier to move around when you're younger than when you're older and might have a (larger) family to worry about.

But from the perspective of someone who reviews admissions applications, I'd say the single most important factor is demonstrating your potential to be a PhD level researcher. If you can do that, I'm not nearly as concerned about someone having a 3.4 versus a 3.6 or a 3.8 GPA, or a 155 or a 165 on the GRE.


It seems every postdoc position needs representative papers. What should I do if I don't have any publications?

Your question is very much field dependent. In some fields it is acceptable to go without a single publication for your PhD (I believe this is true for some subfields in economics, literature and math). However, you are expected to produce according to your community's standards: for example, in the economics/maths examples above you are expected to have at least one or two working papers/papers under submission containing solid results that were discussed in some workshops. In the literature domain, I understand that there's a lot of focus on teaching, written essays and book reviews etc. (I get this knowledge secondhand, I'm far from a humanities faculty). In my field (CS/AI/ML) you wouldn't be allowed to graduate with one average publication, and would most likely not have been allowed to go 4+ years into your thesis, unless there were very unusual circumstances (you mention industry, so I'm assuming you are at the very least in a STEM discipline).

So, the question you should be asking yourself is: am I comparable to my peers in terms of my PhD accomplishments?

If you have a lot of amazing work that just needs a bit more time, you can either

Ask your advisor to graduate in another year to let these results come to fruition under the umbrella of your thesis OR
Put them up on ArXiv (or the equivalent) and list them there. This is not ideal, but at least it shows that you weren't idle.

From the perspective of a postdoc host, I would most likely pass on an application that's clearly lacking in publications, even if it is backed up by glowing references. I would be more inclined to accept one that is backed up by preprints, if they contained amazing results that are vouched for by people whose opinion I respect. Postdocs should be people who are able to support their own research thread without very close supervision (they should be more independent than grad students at the very least), so you should prove to me that this is indeed the case; this is a tall order without proof that you can actually publish peer-reviewed work in good venues on your own.

I'm sorry to offer an answer you most likely don't want to hear, and I wish you all the best!


How can a full professor from a developing country get a job in the United States?

Short answer: Yes, a professor from a developing country can find employment.

Longer answer: It's hard for anyone to get a position as a full professor. It's likely to be harder if you are from another country.

"I applied for full professor position, I was not successful."  Many, many people apply for full professorship positions. Most of them are not successful. There are many reasons you didn't get offered the position.

One of the reasons may have been that there would be more hassle to do the necessary paperwork for immigration purposes. Not all universities will do this.

The main reason was that there was someone that the appointing committee liked more.

You might ask for feedback about why you weren't offered the position, but the university might not be forthcoming.

The big hurdle that I think you are going to have is fear from the university. If they appoint someone and they turn out to be unsuccessful, they have a problem on their hands. Removing a full professor is difficult. Someone they know (or know of, through contacts) is always going to be a safer bet than someone who they don't know.  (I read somewhere recently, and I can't think where that assistant professors are appointed because of hope - the hope that they will do well. Full professors are appointed through fear - the fear that they won't turn out to be a disaster for the university).

I would have two pieces of advice: (1) Keep applying, and seek feedback about your application. (2) Don't be too fussy about the position; if you are in the country and have a job, it will (I think) be easier to get a different job.


May I discuss a paper I have only seen as a referee?

No.  It's a standard expectation that you'll keep confidential anything in the papers you referee.  Once the paper is published (or even made available online as a preprint) then you'd be free to refer to what has been made public.


Are there any benefits from publishing research on subjects different than one's degree/profession?

I have done this, and as I found, there's a few benefits:

You may be able to introduce a new concept to a field, and see that idea grow.
It shows a level of flexibility and the power to change. For example, "your field" might not be static. I've given talks in conferences that I never would have thought were my field, and I currently have a job in something that's not "my field" - and some of that is due to multidisciplinary papers.


Re-apply to a PhD position that is re-posted after being rejected?

First of all, can you be sure it is exactly the same position? The same professor might have just gotten another grant which can fund another PhD position; it is then possible that they announced the second position with an (almost) identical ad. If that is the case, you can still have a chance of being accepted if you apply. If not and it's indeed the same position, it'll be much more difficult.

If it's a second position with the same professor, it means that the search for a suitable candidate starts anew. Being rejected with the previous application then isn't really a problem—it just means there was at least one candidate better than you. With a new hiring process, the selection starts from a beginning and it can happen that you'll be the best candidate this time. If, on the other hand, it's the same position, none of the candidates was a good fit for the job; and that doesn't change now unless you can change a part of your application (like your cover letter).

In my opinion, you cannot go wrong by sending a brief, polite email to the professor and asking about the new ad and potentially for a short feedback on your application. The worst that can happen is that you'll get no response at all, and then it's probably not a good idea to apply.


How to use data from a colleague who retired in my thesis without commiting fraud or plagiarism

As PatW says in a comment: the general correct action in this case is coauthorship. This gets a little bit trickier with a thesis, which does not typically allow coauthors per se. For the thesis, the thing you should do is give explicit credit where the data is introduced. If it corresponds with the practices of your field, you can also put in a citation to your colleague as an unpublished document or personal communication.

When you republish this material as a journal manuscript or other conventional form that allows multiple authors, however, your colleague should be amongst the set of coauthors.


Have most journals recently stopped providing off-prints to authors?

Off-prints are a remnant from the days when photocopying hadn't been invented and, if you wanted your own copy of a paper, the only reasonable way to get one was to write to the author and ask for an off-print.

Providing off-prints to authors certainly seems to be becoming less common.  Some journals still provide them for free, some only for a fee, and some not at all.  I don't think most people care, and among those that do care, many prefer not to receive the off-prints.  It's been years since I received a request for an off-print, so when I do get them they just end up sitting in piles in my office while I offer them as party favors to anyone who enters the office.  Some decline and probably many of the rest recycle them, since electronic copies are far more convenient.

  Can I pressure the journal into sending me off-prints free of charge (e.g would trying to refuse signing the publishing agreement, unless they provide the off-prints for free work?).

I wouldn't try pressuring them, which could come across as both eccentric and rude.  Instead, you could try begging, by explaining that you are a postdoc with strictly limited funds but would really love off-prints and hope they could provide them at a reduced cost.  I have no idea whether this could work, but the worst that can happen is that they'll say no.

  Have people tried boycotting journals not offering off-prints?

You are welcome to investigate which journals provide off-prints for free and submit your papers there, but I doubt many people will join you in this.


Are there reasons to revoke my degree if I shared old notes with a current student who was caught plagiarizing my work?

I highly doubt that you will face any consequence more serious than being blacklisted from that university for future enrollment. You've already graduated; I'm sure they dislike you sharing answers with current students, but that hardly seems like justification to revoke a degree that you previously earned. If they do contact you about revoking a degree, lawyer up. Sharing answers to old homework problems does not seem like reasonable grounds for claiming that a degree was granted incorrectly.
On the other hand, your friend will probably face the standard consequences for plagiarism.


Can an extended journal version of a conference paper include different list of co-authors?

If the work is extending the original, then all of the original authors should be retained.  New authors can certainly be added, however, if they have contributed to the extension.


The manuscript status suddenly changed to “Draft Status” in ScholarOne

We were recently informed that the manuscript exceeded the word count set by the journal and therefore was unsubmitted. We were asked to revise and re-submit the paper.


How to not get "filtered out" during graduate admissions in top programs?

The easiest way is to get buy-in beforehand. Find a specific PI you'd like to work with and contact them, best if by phone, preceded by email. Express your interest and how groundbreaking you find their research, and how you can uniquely contribute to their research program. Usually this gets you off the pile and onto someone's desk. The school may have cutoffs for standardized test scores, but even that can be mitigated if you capture a specific persons' interest. The point is, make a personal appeal to an individual.


I have stack-exchanged through my undergrad math program. Am I likely to succeed in mathematics PhD programs?

Yes! In fact, I think you're well on your way to doing better than your peers! Taking longer to understand something isn't something to be proud of! There's no need to reinvent the wheel. If someone can help you understand something, you would be well-advised to make use of them. In the same way, you would be well-advised to attend the lectures, thereby getting help from the professor, instead of staying at home with the ZFC axioms and attempting to derive the whole of mathematics from scratch.

My experience asking questions on Stack Exchange also indicates that simply writing the problem in a form which others can understand is a great help in clarifying my own understanding of the problem. Indeed, I've solved some of my problems simply by beginning to write a (never asked) question.

Of course, this doesn't mean you should outsource your understanding to others. You should make it so that you can explain the concept to next year's students without help (answer some other SE questions while you're at it!). But even then you should feel free to ask for help with next year's problems.


Is it acceptable to e-mail a professor at another university to ask for a meeting to discuss common research interests?

The answer is simple: yes, it is acceptable and common. Don't worry about your rank or about the status of your school. If your email is polite, friendly, is not too long but still includes enough relevant information about you to make it clear to the professors that you and they have shared interests, I estimate that the chances of success (meaning they will agree to meet) are very high — basically the only reasons why this may not work are if the professor is out of town on the day you are proposing to visit, is overwhelmingly busy with other commitments, or is an unpleasant and unfriendly person you probably wouldn't want to meet anyway. Good luck!


Level of detail when reviewing a PhD thesis - very picky (draft) reviewer

This type of question doesn't have a single correct answer, but many different approaches. To that extent, here's what I would do.

There's two ways to go here: the difficult one, where you try to fight back, and the easy one, where you just make the corrections. Given that (a) this is a thesis, not a publication, making it essentially a single-purpose document unlikely to be referenced again in the future, and (b) the completion of the thesis is entirely dependent on this picky advisor saying that it's complete, I would DEFINITELY recommend just making the corrections.

Stated differently: choosing to fight this will likely cause far more damage than choosing not to fight.

Only caveat to the above is to only let this happen once or maybe twice per section. I.e., if this goes on for two rounds—i.e., if you make all his changes, and then he gives you another redlined document, where he essentially edits most of his own edits—then you're in infinite editing purgatory, and you'll have to work with him to figure out how to break the cycle and agree it's just good enough.


Compressing a huge paper for a double blind review process

The real problem with such a paper is that conferences have deadlines. Therefore the review process needs to be expeditious. Journals can in most cases handle long papers since they don't need to promise when the paper will appear and try to have a big enough backlog that they can fill an issue with interesting work. But if the call asks for 10 page papers that is what they really are depending on.

I don't think the "method" by which you make the longer work available is the issue. You can probably find a way to make it blind. But the length isn't copacetic for purposes of their very hard deadlines.

For the conference, write something else. Or write some small excerpt of the longer work that fits the expectations of the committee.

But if you prove a long standing and important theorem, a short, even one page, announcement is probably enough for a conference, ending with "Proof will follow." You will want to include some information about why you think your proof stands up  - vetting by some other folks. If you want to get bold, mention the key element of the proof (the crux) that made it come together. Now you are up to around, say, 10 pages. All is good. The full proof can appear later in a more appropriate journal.


Corona virus's effect on graduate admissions

You presumably did some research before deciding on where to apply to in the first place. That research is still valid. Any other contact with the institution(s) and faculty add to that basis of judgement.
You seem to presume that there is one uniquely right answer on your choice, and that getting to that one answer requires attending an open house. Likely, almost any choice could turn out well, or turn out badly, all depending on factors totally divorced from the open house.
Note that many people accept without having been to an open house. So, the decision can be made without going to one.
You seem to presume that actions to reduce the spread of the virus are unethical, something that I would hotly contest.


Am I obligated to work on a project unrelated to my thesis because PI asked me to?

I don't know the details of your situation, but you should keep in mind my personal rule #1 of academic research:

  Rule #1. You should always have a publication in mind for research you work on, unless there is some other very tangible benefit that makes it worth the time.

This rule is motivated by the fact that your vita showcases the publications you produce (and the grants you receive), but not the projects you work on. You want to make sure that you get due recognition for your efforts, which means turning them into publications. The more often you can employ rule #1, the better.

Are you certain that you cannot find a way to get a publication out of this project, perhaps by broadening it slightly?

The second thing to keep in mind is that, in a group research lab, it is very reasonable to do some work that is not related to your thesis. Of course, you must also work on your thesis, but it does not need to be the only thing you do. Having a more broad vita when you graduate is a real benefit if you are applying to postdocs and other positions.

Finally, are you getting paid out of the PIs grants? If so, that is perhaps a more tangible reason to work on the projects that fund those grants.


Does educational research productivity count as research productivity?

Different schools will weight publications differently. DBER research is often seen as less rigorous than other research, and often is less rigorous than similar research conducted by education scholars. (DBER often uses samples of convenience and has limited ability to randomize treatments; this still can generate valuable insights, and is often the limit of what active biologists (say) can make time for, so peer-reviewed journals are not going to insist on only the most rigorous methods.)

Beyond that, the fact that your primary research is closely linked to your DBER is very helpful. Grants that ask for the external impact of your work will look favorably on a record of translating your work into advances in education.


Should you highlight an editorial written about your research article in your CV?

You'll likely include a list of publications sorted by publication type (e.g., book, book chapter, edited book, journal article, ...), you can add a list  headed "Media coverage", "Press coverage", or similar.


How to politely describe a situation where you have no publication because both you and the advisor are inexperienced in a new research topic?

I suspect the answer for this strongly depends on cultural context.  My answer is for applications to PhD programs in the US (and probably Canada also), but it may not hold for other countries.

In the US, it's not expected that every student going into a PhD program has written a paper.  (In some subjects, almost no students entering a PhD program has written a paper.)  Your advisor should simply not mention that you haven't written a paper, but explain what you have done successfully (and there are other notions of success than writing a paper!), and what positive character attributes you have that lead him to believe you will be a successful PhD student.  It will be necessary to go into details of your project, but no mention needs to be made about the lack of a paper coming out.

You should have a similar approach in your personal statement, emphasizing what you learned from your research project and your coursework and explaining what research you want to work on for your PhD.

The PhD program will be admitting you as a person, not your package of previous accomplishments (although of course your previous accomplishments will tell them something about you as a person).


What is a suitable job title for someone responsible for creating large data sets?

I think you are a "data curator."
This paper indicates that US participants consider a data curator as one overseeing the entire data management cycle, while their European/Australian counterparts have a narrower view focused on technical aspects of archiving in the final stages of the data cycle.
Below is an excerpt:

The use of the term data curator and its broad understanding was quite prevalent among the US professionals, while Australian and European participants made a clear distinction between data curators and data managers and did not use the terms interchangeably.
Participant P stated: "Data manager is for the first part of the data life cycle and data curator is in the last part of it. The data curator reviews, migrates, and enhances data and metadata, whereas the data manager helps with data collection, metadata standards, and creating coherent and authentic data sets (that ideally subsequently need less curation). A data curator rather works with the final data objects, to optimize them to a final version that can’t be manipulated anymore after that.


What types of questions should I be expecting for my final year project viva for my undergrad?

Ask your supervisor: Vivas vary between institutes.


It's not an uncommon mistake, and if we were to reject all papers and abstracts that have citation mistakes, the publication rate would probably drop to nearly zero.

  may the abstract still be accepted despite the citation mistake?

Yes, sure.

To avoid this kind of error in the future, you can try to write your papers with LaTeX, using its bibliographical tools.


Publishing similar but much longer article "again" in different journal?

It depends on what you mean by "flesh out". If you mean "waffle a bit more, add some detail to the introduction and discussion" then the answer is an emphatic NO. If you mean "add some further analysis that uses the original manuscript as a starting point and explores a different, previously undiscussed angle", then the answer is a hesitant yes, but it begs the question of whether it would be more effectively presented as a single, comprehensive paper.


Referring students to external resources

Citation

Citations are important. It's usually going to take several classes to teach undergrads how to do it properly.

"The professionals" (i.e. career academics) use tools, like Mendeley and BibTex; it's perfectly alright for students to learn to do it too. Actually, writing a long paper without a reference manager is a really bad idea. You're going to make more mistakes doing it by hand. And f you have to change style, you're in trouble if you have to do that by hand. For example, if you submitted a paper to one journal but get rejected, and want to submit to a different journal that requires a different citation format. If you use a reference manager then changing all your references can be done relatively easily.

But to use tools correctly, you do have to have an understanding of the underlying process. So you should also require the students to be able to apply a citation by hand, if required.

I would say that this calls for a two-part exercise, first learning to apply two different citation styles by hand ("Cite this journal paper, proceedings paper and book according to standard X, then according to standard Y"), and then as a second exercise using a tool ("Enter the data, then export a reference according to standard X, then export according to standard Y"). So instead of just pointing out the existence of these tools, actually push your students to learn to use them.

Grammar

It feels childish to grade academic content for langue: it ought to be substance over form. But in the real world, form matters. Consider what could happen if an article is written poorly:

It may be hard to read. Fewer busy academics will read it.
It may be hard to understand. Will convince fewer academics of your ideas.
It may be misunderstood.
What the text actually ends up saying, isn't what the author meant it to say.

All of these are bad, both for the author and the academic community. Good writing isn't a frivolous form over substance thing. It's important.

If the language in a paper is really bad, then that makes the paper bad. Even if the ideas and research were good. The medium fails the message.

  I usually point them to our university's academic skills centre but since usually there are points for grammatical correctness and writing style, I hate it when they lose points for something they can't do anything about.

Yes, they can do something about it (avail themselves of the academic skills centre, get language training). And they have to, in order to graduate as good academics. By subtracting points for poor language you're pushing them in the direction where they need improvement.

(Nobody said it was going to be fun. It's good to be compassionate; it's not good to shield people from the push they need to improve.)

So what does that mean for tools like Grammarly? Well, it's good to support yourself with tools, but if you have a serious deficiency in English then the tool isn't going to fix that.

I would say discuss the tool in class:

Why is good language important? (So that people understand you and take you seriously.)
What can the tool do for you? (Catch common mistakes, signal bad style, find things you overlooked.)
What are the limitations of the tool? (Generally tools have trouble when you meant A, but wrote syntactically correct B. Computers are good at doing what we say, not what we meant.)
What can you do if the tool is not enough for you? (How to evaluate if you have a deficiency, what can you do to fix a deficiency?)


What to do when the professor does not stand up to cheating?

Beer and Circus calls this the "student-faculty non-aggression pact":

Faculty provide an easy class and don't look too hard into cheating
Students happily take the easy grade and leave the professor free to do research

I wouldn't say this is "the rule"; plenty of faculty do an awesome job teaching. But, I'm not surprised to hear your report -- some faculty don't care about teaching generally, while others care about teaching but don't care about grades or catching cheaters. Many feel (for better or worse) that cheaters get what they deserve eventually, and don't want to be personally involved in punishing them.

  What to do...

I would carefully check the department and university policies -- often, cheating cases are explicitly prosecuted "at the professor's discretion." I would also speak directly with the professor. Speaking of....

  I started assigning zeros to the offending students...[collected evidence]...and deposited the six-inch-tall stack of documents at the professor's door.

I suspect this was not the best way to go about it. I would recommend first speaking with the professor, making them aware of the problem, and asking how to proceed. At a minimum, this could have saved you a week's worth of wasted effort. As it is, you assigned a bunch of zeros, and it sounds like your professor was okay with this -- that is some punishment, at least.

  Is this just [the way of] academia?

Well, it's certainly a bit dysfunctional. And it's inevitable as long as prosecuting cheaters is a lot of work for the faculty while providing absolutely no "reward" when done successfully.


Is it normal to feel too rushed to publish as a PhD student?

Is this situation common?

I suppose that it is a common situation among PhD students. I am almost in an identical situation with a constraint on that is left to submit my thesis. I have (only) 3 years to work-write-submit papers so that I can stitch them as a thesis. I am in computer science. If I don't publish at least 2 or 3, my university would not even allow me to submit my thesis and my stipend would vanish leaving me screwed up for sometime.

  Is this situation good?

Yes and No. Yes, because it would put some stress on your mental and physical capabilities, but would result in sooner fruitful results. I think that matters. No, because, this is not research I feel. You can't just think of productivity and at the same time think of science. I do understand that the world is fast-paced w.r.t. publishing and stuffs, but, this is contradictory to the properties of research and science isn't it.

  Is this your best interest?

I feel so given the situation is identical. But, I console myself on the fact that "wait boss, just 3 more years and you are done!". Best is to make friends and go out in weekend and talk to new people around and forget work for some time. Go for date, movies. Just, don't think negatively about PhD.

P.S. I belong to Computer Science community, in late second year of my PhD, has submitted an article to a conference.


Is it possible to be admitted to a masters in Germany with a 3-year bachelors from another country?

Schools in Germany typically have an "International Office" or some other similar organization whose responsibilities include the "recognition" of foreign degrees earned outside of Bologna Process countries. If they approve of your bacehlor's degree as functionally equivalent to theirs, you should be fine. They may also ask you to take some additional number of classes to complete the equivalency. However, if too many credits are needed, they may refuse the request.


Is it usual to use endowed chairs to support deans' administrative duties, rather than faculty's academic work?

I only know how these things work in the natural sciences at R1 institutions, so my experiences might not be helpful for your institution.

However, at my university, both the current and former deans of natural sciences were given endowed chairs when they arrived: the (former) dean Daniel Carson (see here) is the Schlumberger Chair of Advanced Studies and Research and Professor of BioSciences, and the current dean Peter Rossky (see here) is the Harry C. & Olga K. Wiess Chair of Chemistry.  As you can see from his webpage, Carson continued to run a lab and churn out great research while dean (he finished his position in the spring of 2014), and I expect that the same will be true for Rossky (he just arrived and doesn't have much of a web presence at Rice, but here is his former webpage).  So it is not necessarily nefarious -- to hire really top-notch scientists into administrative positions, you have to offer them things.

But of course I have no idea what is going on at your university, and it could very well be a power play by the administration.


In journals submissions, what does "Confirmation of Intent" mean?

As @vadim123 said in the comment, this is to estimate the size of the special issue. If it were too small, the journal may decide to:

make a very small special issue;
join special issues from two conferences into one;
cancel the special issue and propose acceptance of the paper through a standard process.

If the special issue is too large, they would typically make it into a supplement.

What should you do? Reply yes or no for your participation in the special issue, and if yes, then the estimated length, like: "We'll provide the full proofs while in the 10-page extended abstract there were obly sketches, it'll be circa 20 pages long." If they wanted more information, they would have asked for it explicitly.


How to demonstrate mastery of courses not taken during undergraduation

I find this a hard question because I regularly have to deal with applicants claiming they have certain skills and because these cases are difficult to deal with. For example, recently an applicant got a bad grade for one module and wrote they really were much better. I decided the applicant's examiners are in a much better position than I to judge the applicant's capabilities.

In your case you want to prove you have knowledge you didn't formally study in your undergraduate school. If so it's impossible to prove your skills unless (1) somebody from your undergraduate school is willing to write a letter of recommendation, or (2) the grad school are willing to ``examine'' you.

In the case of (1) this may work. Unfortunately, (2) means the graduate school have to do more work and I think this is unlikely.

Finally, if the graduate school require the skills, it seems to me they think it is reasonable. In that case, applicants should have taken modules that demonstrate these skills. If they haven't, it seems to me they're not the ideal candidates in the opinion of the graduate school.


Found an amazing source for a presentation. How do I avoid plagiarising it?

Acknowledge the influence clearly and appropriately.  Precisely what this means will depend on the specifics:

If you use direct quotes, then show them clearly as such — i.e. in quotation marks, or some visual environment clearly marking them as quotations.
If you’re using figures, acknowledge this in captions: “Taken from Miaow 2011, p.73”, or “Based on Miaow 2011, Fig 12.2”, or similar.
If you’re not directly quoting text or re-using figures, but major aspects of your overall organisation have been influenced by the book, then add a note saying this at the beginning or end: “Presentation heavily influenced by Miaow 2011, Ch.12” (or “based in part on”, “greatly indebted to”, etc.)  The bigger the influence, the more prominent you should make your note.
If your work will be advertised via an abstract, or similar brief description, and if the influence is particularly large — e.g. forms the main body of your presentation, not just one of several sections — then it may be appropriate to mention it in the abstract: “(This is an expository seminar, based in large part on Miaow 2011.)”

As long as the acknowledgement is prominent and accurate, then you are not plagiarising.  However, a couple of related issues to be careful about:

In some contexts, there’s an expectation of originality/novelty in your work.  If too much of your work is heavily based on earlier work of others, then it may not be considered suitably original or novel for these venues.
Copyright may also be an issue.  I’m not legally very knowledgable, so take this with a large grain of salt; but roughly, I think it’s likely to be a concern if you are either directly quoting a significant proportion of the text, or directly reusing figures/images.


What is the average tenure-track duration in the USA?

There's quite a spread: where I am it's seven years (sometimes extended to eight when someone has a kid), but I've heard of other places where it's as short as four. Six is probably the median. It's not unheard of for people to go up for tenure early if they think they're likely to get it and their department chair (or other relevant people) agree.


How to get in touch with professors in Japan for research projects/masters education

I received such a MEXT research student scholarship from October 2012 to March 2014. (In my case, I'd already made contact with a Japanese professor who I wanted to study with).

There's several things to consider in terms of how to contact people.

You need to search Japanese university websites in your field. This is going to be nearly impossible if you don't have any Japanese fluency.
Then you're going to want to find researchers who you could imagine working with presumably you'd narrow it in terms of both research interest and their ability to use languages you can use (e.g., English).
Write them a letter explaining you are receiving a scholarship from the Monkasho (文部科学省) and would like to study in their university, starting from being a kenkyuusei (研究生).
See who responds.

As a basic rule, you are more likely to get a response from professors at universities that are used to hosting international students with MEXT scholarships. This will mean national universities like: Tokyo University, Kyoto University, Tohoku University, Kyuusyuu University, Hokkaido University, Nagoya University, Hitotsubashi, etc. and well-known private universities like Waseda, ICU, Keio, Aoyama.

More minor schools (prefectural or city ones) will probably not be super familiar with the procedures and would require strong support and interest from the advisor -- who doesn't get much time or money to help work on this (and it's quite the administrative hassle).

Separately, Japan is a place where knowing people is more than half the battle so it's hard to build connections from scratch. Instead, you're hoping that at least one person will respond and either be open to hosting your or know someone who is that they are willing to forward your e-mail to.


Many universities will publish statistics on how many of their graduates are employed or in further education within X months after graduating. If you're only concerned about getting a job, then that's probably your best source of information.

That said, in the end it depends on you. People get jobs with crappy degrees and fail to get jobs with really good degrees. Whether you'll be able to get a job in your chosen field will depend on what exactly you do for your degree.

A good opportunity for improving your chances of getting a job after you graduate is to do an internship while you're at university. Many universities have job centres or similar that can help you with that.


I would say that you best bet would be to have your university host a server running Gitlab, gitea, gogs, or something similar. It would take a bit of money and technical know-how to run the server, but at least you would be safe from embargos.


Can you submit to Arxiv without an institutional affiliation?

I've had no affiliation while submitting to the arxiv regularly before.  I just use "N/A" in that field of my profile.  Never had a problem.

Others have asked very similar questions before. These all seem to be about people having previously posted with an affiliation to now losing or changing their affiliation, rather than someone who has never posted. The former would be my own situation. Still, the key to entry is getting endorsed.  Once you're in, you are permanently in, short of administrative actions for violations. These could happen if, say, you falsely report your affiliation.  But simply not having an affiliation is not an issue.


Graduation paper submitted to conference, suddenly demoted to third author?

Unless authors are arranged alphabetically, it would indeed be expected that the largest contributor be the first listed, and from what you have written that would appear to have been you.

Except...

You speak about the submission entirely remotely. It sounds like you were not involved and did not ask to be involved in the preparation of the conference submission.  Moreover, it appears that you did not have any discussion about authorship with your advisor. I still would generally expect an advisor to keep the student as first author, but if the advisor believes the student has effectively vanished and does not care about the publication, it is not surprising if a difference in perspective may have developed.  For example:

Your advisor may consider the revisions to be more significant than you believe.
Since your thesis should be a public, citable document, your advisor may be viewing this paper as a derivative work.

You really need to have a conversation about this with your advisor.  Start from an assumption of good intent---your advisor might just be a self-promoting jerk, but they also might have good reason for the choice they made, of which you just are not aware.

Finally, even if you don't end up as first author, consider this as a lesson for the future: stay involved in the preparation of any paper on which you expect to be first author!


It sounds like you reacted fairly well.  I've been in many interviews, and been asked all sorts of questions that I don't know.
If it is on the job description, you should have researched it ahead of time.  It is ok to state that is an area of interest and drew you to this job (if that is true).  State that you have experience in learning new things.

If it is a specific product or buzzword, state that you don't know that product name; ask what type of thing it is, and then answer with your experience in that type of thing.

There are also "unanswerable" interview questions just to see how the interviewee responds.

I know recruiters who aim for people to be an 80-90% match, not 100% as they already know everything and will not be challenged and thus leave fairly soon.

The most important things are to stay calm, rational, and willing to research and learn whatever it is.


Appropriately thank a supervisor for giving you a chance when you actually failed?

"Thanks for the opportunity" is almost always appropriate and welcome.

As far as "apologetic" goes, I'd think on why the goal wasn't reached. Some research projects are known to be long shots before they're begun and failure, while obviously not desired, is not an unforeseen outcome. Sometimes outside events beyond anyone's control torpedo things. If this is the "flavor" of your situation, then I don't necessarily think abject apologies are called for, though you can certainly commiserate with others involved on how things turned out. Sometimes research just doesn't pan out, and good research supervisors understand that you can't hit if you don't swing.

On the other hand, when I've been part of projects that failed in whole or part due to things I did or didn't do, I've tried to make sure the supervisor involved knows that at least I learned from the experience and that I had an idea of how I would do things differently in similar circumstances should they arise. Really, this is a valuable response in either case. Especially, though, if you hope to have future research opportunities with this supervisor, I'd make sure this is understood.


How to publish an extended version of a Springer journal article on arXiv?

For A, I think the introduction should make it clear that each team contributed to a particular part of the document, moreover, each team should have the opportunity to review/comment/improve sections by other teams, this should help address concerns regarding 3, thus, lead us to favour options 1 & 2.

Option 1 appears to be the easiest option, because problems might emerge during option 2: B might have copyright issues (because A was published first and is subject to copyright), and addressing these issues (e.g., perhaps by attributing content in B to A) is likely to be time-consuming.

On this basis, I recommend option 1.


Obstacles to collaborative research between experimentalists, theorists, and computational researchers

I'm a computational chemist. I've worked with many experimental collaborators with wildly varying experiences. Barriers certainly can and most definitely exist. Here are some of the major ones.

Lack of understanding: This is perhaps the most common and basic reason and results from a lack of experience or knowledge in experimental techniques by computationalists and vice versa, quite simply because they were not trained in this area. As a computationalist, it is natural that I may misunderstand how certain experimental techniques work (especially the state of the art) because I do not spend most of my time working on it. This can result in me over-trusting a piece of experimental evidence, or underestimating the time and effort it can take to conduct the experiments. And believe me, this can definitely happen the other way round. One example, an experimental collaborator asked for some 'quick calculations' in a month and I had to point out that it would easily take a year and all of our computational budget to complete it.
Politics: In a collaboration, there is always the question of who is the major contributor. Yes, it is possible to have multiple corresponding and first authors, but it rarely changes this fact. In my field (chemistry), usually the experimental side is the major participant of a collaborative work. This means a computational PI will benefit significantly less, and his student will usually not be a first author. This generally leads to conflicts regarding contribution of time and resources given the unequal recognition of work. Sometimes, in order to solve this issue, particularly for long-term collaborations, the experimentalist and computationalist can 'take turns' directing the project and claiming the major contribution to a paper. (I am not supporting or criticizing this phenomenon, but it definitely exists in the field.)
Geographic/temporal reasons: Quite simply, many if not most collaborations occur between groups in different universities and different countries. The simple fact is you cannot communicate them like you would with your group members in the same room. This results in the need to schedule meetings and email communications which are often difficult (professors are busy!) and are invariably an inefficient way of transferring information. I've has cases where several weeks or even months of work were invalidated/or made irrelevant because I was only informed of new experimental findings many months later in a meeting.
Different objectives/expectations: There is some overlap with the political reason, but sometimes it can be purely due to academic reasons. It can be common for experimental and computational groups to have different expectations for what knowledge/results a work is supposed to yield. For example, a study can be trivially easy for a computationally group (and possibly uninteresting) to accomplish (via modelling), but can be extremely difficult for an experimental group to synthesize/characterize. Alternatively, a relatively simple reaction for an experimental group to conduct can be a multi-year effort by several researchers (or it can even be unsolvable/impractical by current techniques!).

Is it possible to overcome these barriers? Certainly. I've had collaborators who are well aware of these issues (from experience), and end up being very enjoyable to work with. As an aspiring researcher, the best thing you can do is keep these issues in mind when collaborating with other groups. If possible, try to learn the techniques which your collaborators are currently using, and maintain a steady stream of communication with whoever your direct counterpart is (usually, if you are a student, keep in contact with the corresponding student in the other group instead of the professor directly - though you can/should CC him and your advisor to keep them in the loop).

Edit: I decided to add some examples of hypothetical collaborators from the perspective of a computational researcher (for fun). Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

The Good: The well-informed and reasonable collaborator. Knows their stuff (even on your side), up to date on literature, knows what is practical and not. Knows if you are BSing them or not. Won't do you wrong if you do your job. Keep them well-fed with updates. Expect to do good science with them.

The Bad: The villain/antagonist. Only works with you because you are part of the same grant or project, and only sees you as a way of getting higher impact factor. Only interested in positive results, gives unreasonable deadlines, does not like to hear the phrase "but that can't be done!' Never satisfied, keep him well-fed, but for your own survival.

The Ugly: Nice guy, easy to work with. Okay with whatever you have. Takes anything you offer, but not terribly interested in the science behind the results. Likes you because you can help him get higher impact factor journals. Expect him to disappear one day when he has found someone better or no longer needs your help.


Yes.  You could mention it in your SOP and/or in your CV.

I have received some applications from students in which they mentioned a technical blog, and so far it has always left a positive impression.  In my opinion, keeping such a blog demonstrates:

Maturity in writing and communicating (especially if your blog communicates something technical in an informal way that is not sloppy).
Organization of thought and effort.
Initiative.
Love for learning ideas relevant to your discipline.


collaboration with a professor from other school

Do it. It can only be good for you. And it is generally acceptable.

Make sure that your supervisor knows what's going on and approves, though if you are using your own time, there should be no reason not to approve.


How to decline an invitation to work on a funding proposal?

Whatever you do, both Professors A and B will certainly find out.  So why not just ask them now how they feel about this dilemma?  Perhaps you could even get them into the same room for a discussion.  You obviously like them both and would like to work with both.  Now you're simply trying to do right by both of them.  Who knows.  Unless A and B don't like each other, maybe there's a fourth option where all 3 of you work together.


What are the consequences of mistakenly publishing existing research?

I partially disagree with the answer given by astronat, since I think it does not reflect how common it is in mathematics to rediscover existing results (and to publish them without knowing that they already exist). So here is a somewhat different perspective:
Terminology.
What the OP calls mistakingly publishing existing research is, in my experience, more commonly and with a less negative connotation, referred to as rediscovery of existing research.
Distinction from plagiarism.
This point has already been explained in astronat's answer: independently rediscovering a result (and publishing it without knowing about its former existence) is something completely different from plagiarism.
Consequences.
What will happen if you publish a result which is already in the literature but you have not been aware of?
Nothing.
The math departments of this world would be empty halls if every mathematics professor who has unconsciously published a theorem or idea that already existed in the literature was banned from the university. (See the point "Prevalence" below.)
Of course, if this happens very often to you, this might have a negative impact on your reputation; but it happens to almost everybody now and then, so there is not much reason to worry in case that it does happen to you. (Unless in very, very obvious situations - if, for instance, I claimed to be a functional analyst and then published a "novel" result which turns out to simply be the Hahn-Banach theorem, chances are that I would have a much harder time to be taken seriously from now own. But this really refers to extreme cases only.)
Prevalence.
This is one of the points where I disagree with the assessment in astronat's answer. Experience shows that results are rediscovered and re-published (without the authors knowing or citing the earlier occurrance(s) of the result) all the time.
I could write a lengthy list of examples where this happened in papers I read or to people I know or to myself. But there are much better sources for this claim than my personal experience.
Just to get an impression, see for instance these two MathOverflow posts (post 1, post 2) or this blog post by Terry Tao.
Some reasons why this happens.

In earlier days, mathematical results could not be distributed as quickly as they are now (in particular, due to the internet).

Even today, access to many results is somewhat restricted, for instance if they are published in somewhat obscure journals (or, say, proceedings of small conferences) which are hardly accessible, or if they are published in languages which are not widely spoken.

While we have the internet and search engines available nowadays, the amount of published mathematical literature has also become much larger than only a few decades ago, which makes it literally impossible to know everything that could be relevant to your work.

Moreover, search engines are only useful if you know the right key words to search (which is often not the case due to varying terminological conventions).

There a many different ways to phrase or describe a mathematical result (and every more so for a mathematical idea). So even if our idea / argument / theorem is essentially present in a paper and even if we have a close look at this paper, it can sometimes be very hard to recognize it there. Since there are numerous papers which we ought to take a look at before we publish a result, there is simply no way to read all related papers in depth, and we will probably spend more time reading those papers which are obviously very closely related to our work. So if a similar idea occurs in a related, but not closely related paper, and if it is worded quite differently from how we would phrase it, there is a considerable chance that we just miss it.

Many ideas are so fundamental that they occur in many different fields of mathematics (and in many different forms). Our knowledge of a particular mathematical field will typically depend monotonically on how close the field is to our own field. So if a similar idea or result occurs in another area, it is quite likely that we are unaware of it. (The fact that different mathematical areas often use quite different terminology and notation for the same thing doesn't make it easier.)

In my experience, people tend to publish a lot of research work, while it is less common to write expository work (to some extent, this is certainly due to incentives imposed by typical career options in academia). For instance, I can think of various mathematical topics where, in my opinion, a comphrehensive survey article or an up-to-date monograph is missing. This is part of the problem since well-written surveys and books are an excellent aid in identifying relevant earlier results.

Some points to be aware of.

While results or arguments or ideas are often re-discovered, it happens more rarely that two papers have very similar content. Quite often, while some results in a paper might already be in the literature (but unknown to the author), there will be other results or insights in the paper that are still new. This is closely related to the point about novelty that user2768 made in their answer.

Even if some results in two papers are very similar, it will sometimes (though not always) happen that their proofs are quite different.

What to do?
That's a difficult question, and the answer that any particular mathematician gives to this might depend very much on their personality. Here are a few suggestions (biased by my own point of view, of course):

Obviously, we should carefully study the literature before we publish something. Citation databases (in mathematics these are, in particular MathSciNet und zbMATH) can be very helpful for this.

The more work we put into putting our results into context, the more we help potential readers of our paper to also become familiar with earlier research and results on the topic. For instance, there is a considerable difference between merely citing papers and explaining, if only briefly, the relevance of these papers. For instance, compare the following to ways to cite relevant literature:
-- "Recently, there has bee a lot of work on this topic [1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 31, 36]"
-- "Interest in the topic abc originally stems from the study of xyz spaces, because their geometric properties can be classified by abc [9, 10, 36]. Later, abc has been extended to a more abstract setting in [1, 3, 21, 23] which made it possible to also classify the geometry of xyz' spaces [24, 25]. In the present paper, we build on the so-called fgh approach to abc recently developped in [12, 15]; combining it with the, at first glance unrelated, ijk technique from operator theory published in [4], we show that all major results in abc theory are actually independent of the foo assumption. This allows us to classify the geometric properties of very large classes of xyz* spaces. In addition, we obtain recent results from [31] as special cases of our general theory."

When writing a referee's report about a paper, we should take much care to point out missing references. In particular, I strongly support the idea that, as a referee, we should point to relevant articles by different authors, and not only to our own (obviously super-important but - heaven knows why - completely underappreciated) work which might not have been cited in the paper under review.

If we have made a preprint publicly available, and - before publication - we get aware you relevant literature that we have missed, we should, of course, make a serious effort to include it in the paper before publication.

If it is too late and you get aware of relevant references after publication, don't rack your brains over it. As explained above, this happens very often. Just make sure to properly include your newly gained knowledge when you write another article on a related topic (of course, this does not only mean to cite the references you now became aware of; it also means to take these references as a starting point for yet another literature search).

It is, in my experience, very uncommon to take any formal actions (such as notifying the journal, or even submitting an erratum) if you become aware of prior relevant work after publication. (But please note that I don't make any assessment as to whether I approve or disapprove of this practice; I'm just pointing out what is common practice.)


Using initials to promote gender neutrality when publishing as a female?

If you feel at risk in your profession for such things, then, certainly, establish a professional persona for yourself that will help assure fairness. Whether it is necessary or not, or backed up by statistics, is irrelevant. If you feel at risk, do what you think is best.

I would also suggest that you get some advice from a female mentor or professor about this. What have their experiences been? I'd guess their advice would be pretty good.

But I'll add, that you should think about making that a permanent persona that won't change in the future. You want your complete history to be traceable through a single name, even as your life changes. You can be A professionally, and B personally, as long as no fraud is intended.

I once should have changed my name, but didn't. Things would have been better for me had I done so at the time. The issue was completely different, but it had consequences.


Choosing between two good reference letters providers

You should ask for them both, and then send them selectively based on the characteristics of the job. For instance, you could send the one from your home country to job postings in the country. It does sound from your description that the newer reference would have a better sense of what you are working on now as well as better name recognition. This would probably be better for most applications. But the point remains that getting them both and sending selectively is the strategy I have used in the past; it has served me well.


I shouldn't have got a PhD. I am not suitable for research in my field. How should I proceed?

This sounds like classic Imposter Syndrome combined with end of degree burnout.
What you are feeling is natural, but having a bunch of papers published seems to imply that this is emotional and not a substantial issue.
The job market in many fields is terrible at the moment. Some of the issues in finding a good position are external and will hopefully subside before too long.
I suggest that you talk to a counsellor about your feelings and also push hard in the job market using all available resources, such as your advisor, etc.
Both the feelings and the job issue will pass if you don't let them affect your sense of self-worth.
Depth will come. You have proven that you can learn. The end of your formal education isn't the end of your education.


Adding an affiliation to an accepted paper

Yes, you can make this change. The easiest way to do it is to wait for the journal office to send you the proofs. If you're worried this might be too late, you can also contact the journal office directly.

Don't email the editorial board because their role is over (they handle peer review, and this is not a peer review issue).


Advisor wants me to take ownership of my projects, but shoots me down whenever I contribute my own ideas

How can I take ownership if I can't contribute my own ideas?

Ownership is not just about contributing ideas. Everyone has "ideas." Rather, complete ownership to my (engineering) mind involves the following:

Understanding fully what the goal of the project is, what has been done before, why what has been done before won't work, and what makes this new project so challenging with respect to the state-of-the-art.
Determining possible courses of action (ideas, as you say) to achieve the new, challenging goal.
Using your expertise (or developing expertise, as the case may be) to come to a determination of the pros/cons of each potential solution (i.e., idea).
For the most promising potential solutions, implement/code/build prototype, etc., obtain needed feedback of how well or poorly it works, try the next "idea," if need be. Rinse, repeat.
Write up your results using compelling/convincing arguments, submit, give convincing talks at seminars, conferences, job talks, etc.

Perhaps you have not done much of the writing up phase (I don't know, you didn't mention it in your post). But, the writing phase can be fairly grueling: reviewers of your papers are not going to show the same compassion that your advisor shows you. The world of science is not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You must make a very compelling case as to why what you did makes sense for the problem you are aiming to tackle, why the results you obtained matter, why your idea is better than some other idea, etc. That is, you need to show people that you know in and out why you are doing what you are doing. Your advisor casting doubts on your "ideas" is no different than what the world of science does daily to all of us. The main difference being: your advisor cares, the rest of the scientific world doesn't (at least, not initially).

  It seems like if I wanted to contribute my own stuff it would be an uphill battle, and I would need to defend my ideas very well, and fight him every step of the way.

Exactly, see my points above. This project is, after all, your baby, not his. The life of a researcher is an uphill battle.

  But it seems that every time I do something extra, that I do in addition to (not instead of) what he told me to do, he finds something wrong with my idea, and wants me to do exactly what he told me to do instead of letting me carry out my idea.

This statement right here shows (to me, anyway) that you are not taking complete ownership of your project. The notion of doing something "extra" has no place in total ownership. This is your project, there are no extra credit points to be doled out: everything you are doing for this project is for you to show the world how you kicked this project in the behind.

  So frankly I do not see the point anymore.

Although I don't know your advisor, I would say that it sounds like your advisor is trying to help you do what any sane, decent PhD advisor would do: to help you along the way to becoming a great, independent researcher. My advice would be to think about the above points. After you get your PhD, the feedback you get about what you are doing in your research goes way down: be grateful for the feedback your advisor gives you about your ideas during this stage of your career.

I think if you take a more proactive approach to your work, and do your best, you can have a rewarding research career. Don't give up!


On conference abstract based on my research lab job, not university where I am currently an undergraduate, should I include university affiliation?

Usually people include their new institution under "current address" on papers, and I think you could do the same for abstracts & posters.

So you can ask them to list you under Acme U and include Natlab as your new address.


In UK, is the advertised salary range before or after tax?

Yes. Internal "grades" usually don't transfer between institutions.
I have just compared my (Russell Group, UK) university pay scale against the UCU one you link to and it is identical. That scale is gross, before tax, pay. I would expect net, take-home, pay to be about 30% less (after PAYE tax, National Insurance, and pension).

It is usual that the best I would expect you to be able to negotiate is one or two points on the spine system, in my experience.


How do judges evaluate presentations at an undergraduate conference?

I apologize for the length of my reply, but I think this is a really great question that I discuss with undergraduates and even grad students all the time, and want to use this as an opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you.

I completely agree with the points that Fábio Dias made in his answer. However, I want to add one general tip with you that I have found to be extremely effective in my experience both presenting talks and posters as well as judging them.

The way I see it, when undergraduate talks/posters are judged, there may or may not be certain specific criteria against which you will be evaluated, but there are certain important subtleties in how you conduct yourself when talking about your work that will almost always affect your evaluation whether there is specific criteria or not. Let me clarify:

As Fábio Dias mentioned, there are many important technical factors that are commonly taken into account when judging presentations, but aside from this, I believe that one of the most powerful tools to get great scores on research talks is to demonstrate some passion and interest into the work you are presenting.

This is typically the biggest problem with undergraduate presentations. Undergraduates are often not very well-versed in the big picture of their research project and therefore end up simply presenting what they did and what data came of it and what they think it means (or what their advisor told them it means). There is rarely any visible interest in the work, or evidence of creative thought on the part of the student, and this is the biggest factor that separates a great undergrad talk from all other undergrad talks.

No matter how dull your research talk may or may not be to you, when you stand up there in front of all those people, make sure to talk and act like you're the most excited person in the room about the work that you have done. This gets people's attention, in my opinion, above all else. Some great ways of doing this are:

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever read from your slides, especially your
title. Always come up with a great "prose" way to describe your whole
project and then your data.
Try to look at your slides as little as possible, unless you're pointing out something on a figure. Look at the
audience, glance around the room. In a scientific forum setting,
simple presentation skills often directly translate into command of
the material being presented.
A great way to prevent yourself from doing the above is to not have
many words on your slides, this keeps people interested and keeps you
from reading to the audience. Many undergrads believe that their research cannot be presented without many words on the slides, but there is almost always a creative way to do this.
Question yourself, and question your research. This does not
mean you should tell the audience that your conclusions are not
accurate, but rather avoid being too rigid in how you describe your conclusions. Avoid words phrases like 'definitely,' 'clearly,' 'this means that,' 'we discovered,' or any version of the word prove/proof/proved, unless used as a technical term such as 'mathematical proof.'
Always talk about your work in terms of what it could mean for the
future, For example, talk about some interesting data that you
couldn't yet explain; offer several possible ways to frame your
conclusions; try to add a few "next steps" to your presentation (and not as a list on the last slide, but work it in in a few places as you talk about your work).
If you anticipate a question or questions from the audience that you
will probably not know how to answer, bring it out in the open as
part of your presentation, and say that you are still working to
understand that particular part of your project.

Some of these things may seem trivial or obvious, but these are probably the most common "mistakes" undergraduate students typically make when giving oral presentations. I say "mistakes" lightly because it is obvious that sometimes the student simply does not get the proper guidance from their advisers, either about their project, or about how to present the work properly, or both. In these cases, of course, acting like you truly love your project may not be possible because it may not be true.

But either way, what it boils down to usually, coming back to something Fábio Dias said above, is that at the undergraduate level, the expectation is less on whether the results are impressive, but rather whether you can demonstrate that you are a good researcher, and that you have done the most with the results that you have.

Good Luck!


How to indicate obscurity in a translated quotation?

After all, it's not what was actually written but my translation, so I feel like this isn't really an option.

You seem to have unconsciously ruled out what I would consider the best option: leave the phrase in question untranslated with a footnote which gives the literal translation and says that the phrase's meaning is unclear but irrelevant.


Submitting a paper, and presenting it at a conference - conflicts?

I have been in the same situation, written a paper, and wanted to disseminate the findings to a wider audience and hence, presented the work at a conference. I am in applied environmental science, and I feel that this is relatively common in my field.

My approach to this situation, bearing in mind there was to be published conference proceedings was to focus on a very specific element of the new methodological development that I worked on, and presented this at the conference, under a similar - but 'different enough' title than the paper. This parallel journal/conference writing also has to be used to be able to honestly answer the journal question, 'is this work being submitted elsewhere?'. Clearly you need to be able to answer no - its not.

This approach allowed me to go into some very fine detail of the new methods that was of interest to the specialist audience at the conference, that otherwise was far too detailed for the journal readership.

At the end of the conference presentation, I also signposted to the paper that was under review and the journal it was with, and some folk said post-conference that they would look for the journal paper when published.

So, in short, I would say that there has to be differences between the two submissions, but there is no problem in having them linked by common ground and to highlight an upcoming journal paper.

All the best.