<issue_start>username_0: I have been experiencing anxiety based on some recent events. During my last semester of college I enrolled in a language course in a language in which I was already fluent. I did this to enable quicker graduation.

After the first two weeks of the class, it became apparent I wasn't going to benefit at all from this course. Additionally, as I was soon graduating, I had other work to perform. I asked the professor if I could stop attending classes and simply turn in the homework by the end of the semester. I did this while speaking the language that she taught. She said "yes".

I didn't attend class for a month and a half, and didn't hear from the professor again. Towards the end of the semester, I emailed the professor to inquire what she wanted me to do to pass the course. She scolded me because she wanted me to attend at least some of the classes (I had misunderstood her in our first conversation). She then told me that despite that, it was OK, she would give me a passing grade (via oral exam), as "you are fluent in the language and shouldn't come to class as it will seem unfair to the other kids."

This appeared to me as if she would pass me based on merit alone. I was VERY shook up, and called her again the same week telling her that I feel like withdrawing and holding off graduation and just taking a different course next semester before starting grad school. She reassured me I'm all set and I need not worry.

Graduation happens, however I was still uneasy as I was preparing to start grad school. I felt like I cheated the system. I contacted her again, and again she told me not to worry. After the first week of grad shool, I called her again and demanded I take the midterm and final for the course in an attempt to ease my mind and worry. Scored 99 and 96 on them without studying.

I still feel really guilty for some reason, and I'm still trying to cope with this. Its honestly affecting my performance in school. MY worse nightmare is that my undergrad will find out and take away my degree and that this will affect my grad school as I needed a bachelors to enter. The professor made it seem as if she was taking a risk by letting me do what I did. She made it seem I was doing something illegal. She told me not to tell my classmates..

As such, my question is: If what happened was found out, would my grad school have grounds to kick me out? If my undergrad found out, can they pull me degree?

Edit: Thanks for the answers, I guess why I'm soo stressed about this is because, to my understanding, she made it obvious that I and the prof. were doing something against school policies, I knew about it and didn't think much about it.<issue_comment>username_1: I feel like you're overthinking this. What you did seems an improvement to me over taking, say, bowling to fill a last credit, which isn't uncommon in undergrad. The professor gave you your grade and you're off to grad school. There's no reason to revisit it, with yourself or anyone else.

Also, it isn't your responsibility, as a student, to audit how a professor grades a class. They may have even consulted with others before letting you do this; you don't know. Don't make assumptions - you did what you did, and the professor decided it was enough to pass the class.

Put this behind you and focus on grad school.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: It's worth pointing out that this depends on your philosophy about what a transcript is. Clearly in some sense the transcript holds *merits that you have achieved* but there's leeway in how you interpret that, mostly in terms of whether you're looking for something which is *normatively* true ("here's how it should be") or whether you're looking for something which is *descriptively* true ("here's how it is in practice").

The most normative model
========================

Your anxiety aside, you might be holding yourself the the highest ethical standards simply for the sake of your own moral foundations, and then you might want to know what a transcript *should* be. If you look at, say, ECTS credits (European) you'll find that they define those credits as *time investment*. This is a really sensible choice for how you "should" define such things as it creates a meaningful way to compare across wildly different scopes like different majors: I can't say whether architecture is harder than applied physics; but I can certainly add up all of the long nights that both are spending doing their respective works and simply compare time-investments in both majors.

If your transcript is a record of *time invested in achievements* then the answer is a straightforward "yes, you are now lying when you hand your transcript to someone and don't disclose that you didn't work very hard to achieve this merit." But on the other hand you have to be shocked a little by how *crude* the transcript is as a measurement of such things: the assumptions that "grade" and "credit hours" correlate with "time spent" is weak in practice, and there is no good provision in this normative system for "person X did well without effort, person Y did the same tasks but struggled for a long time:" you have to just normalize the credits to the average person in the class. So this is normatively stronger but descriptively weak.

The most descriptive model
==========================

This is really straightforward; a transcript is a record of bits that have been set in a database which are somehow important for the bookkeepers at the school to know that you're graduating. Any correspondence between the bits and the real world is an approximation due to the school and any failure in that correspondence is their fault. You got the credits in the system? Great. Doesn't matter how you did; that's a problem for the school, not you.

The obvious limitation is that on this model of what transcripts are, there's *no moral implications to any sort of cheating at all*, because cheating from this perspective is just exploiting ways that the credit-system doesn't match up to the reality intended by the school. But on this view it's the school's responsibility to secure themselves against that; in practice everyone will know the difference between the higher-reputation schools that are robust against this and the "they basically just mail you a diploma" schools that are not. What you did wasn't defined at the time as cheating by your school, so it's not cheating, period. You yourself said that they had no policy on it.

Something in the middle
=======================

Well you might not like either of those: you might not like how the super-normative model doesn't account for practical things like individual differences but you might not like how the super-descriptive model doesn't account for the moral import of cheating and lying that you somehow have achieved X when you haven't really put any time or effort into that achievement. Here's a model which lives in the middle and gets a lot of the best of both worlds. It says: your transcript is a record of *skills you at some point had*, with grades being competencies at-the-time and credit hours being roughly how much practice you had performing that skill at-the-time.

Now this suggests that probably transcripts are poorly suited to what they measure, because probably we should break down courses even smaller and have a lot of Proven-Competent/Not-Yet-Proven-Competent gradings. Different courses would then prove a set of skills competent, and you would be expected to take a set of courses which jointly cover some set of Required skills as well as covering some set of Optional skills. So it inherits some of those normative difficulties of "nobody actually does this 100%, the transcript is a crude approximation." But, I mean, it works if you imagine that all of those sets-of-skills are disjoint and don't look too closely at course prerequisites.

But overall it is pretty practical from a "here is what an employer is interested in if they request your transcript" perspective; if you go to work for Intel and they look at your transcript they want to see a Solid-State Physics course that presumably covered things like how NPN and PNP transistors work, as well as Electronics courses that covered things like "practically, what is an op-amp?".

Now if you take this approach, then clearly you *didn't* cheat the system. Your transcript reflects a skill which you did in fact have; you just got certified as competent in it without spending much time because you had *already invested that time* before you walked in the door, prior to the school year. That's no big moral dilemma; the same thing happens whenever people with great AP scores "test out" of certain required courses and so forth.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Many schools, including the one where I got my undergraduate degree, have a system whereby a student can get credit for a course by proving that he knows the material --- usually by taking exams but possibly by other means. There's usually a limit on how may credits one can get this way. Even if your school doesn't have such a system, the availability of the system in other, reputable schools indicates that there's nothing **morally** wrong with getting credit in this way. So you should have no worries about the morality of your situation.

You are also worried about the administrative situation, specifically that you could get expelled from graduate school if your undergraduate degree is revoked and that this might happen if that one credit is deleted from your record. As far as I can see, your professor acted within the limits of her authority in passing you on the basis of talking with you enough to determine that you know the material of the course (and more). Her actions are supported even more by your later performance on the exams. And she had a legitimate interest in preventing you from participating in the class because your superior knowledge would intimidate other students and possibly decrease their learning. So it's difficult for me to imagine anything in this situation that would cause administrative problems, such as removing that credit from your record.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: The question is: **is it a cheat** and **who is being cheated**?

Instead of giving a straight answer, I give you a recipe to analyse the situation and test your view of the situation:

True story: As a TA, I had a guy in class who didn't work during class, and probably not even at home. Just chatted with me all the time (which was fine, everybody else was working, but that was not a problem with me). *Very smart guy*. Anyway, end of semester, they have to submit, he sat down for a weekend, did the task everyone else worked for a semester on and ended up with the by far strongest submission. Should I have failed him?

Ok, let's change the scenario to a hypothetical one, as you already were fluent in the language before the course: assuming this guy had thought about the same problem at school, before coming to my course. He already had a solution in his head, and joined the course, and could use the solution out of his head. Lucky guy. Should I have failed him?

Now, final hypothetical change: this guy comes to my course *just because* he knows that I am covering just the problem he knows how to solve. And that's where the dilemma begins. He chose the course for that very reason. In other words, he would not have demonstrated improvement during the course, only that he already masters the contents. Should I fail him for fulfilling the requirements of the course better than anybody else? Well, the question is: is the passing for **improvement during the course** or for **final level of mastery**?

The opposite question: A very weak student who improves significantly, but still not really to passing level, should they pass? Normally, standard is that students have to pass at a fixed competence level - and improvement is *not typically* what is measured during the course. Thus, the student will fail. Improvement is not what is measured.

Your dilemma is that typically courses are chosen for improvement and then demonstrating a certain level at the end (implying that the improvement was successful). In your special case, you know that there was no improvement, all you showed is that you *do* have a certain competence (which is all that an exam tests).

You seem to feel that you violated not the letter, but the spirit of taking the course. But, at the end of the day, you didn't cheat about your competency, which is all that the grades guarantee, and actually is what taking this course promises to anybody passing it.

So, who is actually being cheated here? The person you cheated is actually nobody else but **yourself**: after all, academia is about learning - instead of taking the course as an opportunity to develop yourself, you took the easier route and missed an opportunity to develop skills you didn't have to a nice competence level, and rather rehashed skills you already have, to an irrelevant level.

The one that needs to forgive here is therefore yourself: you essentially cheated yourself out of an opportunity, which you wasted. But I think you learnt a lesson. Other opportunities to learn will offer themselves.

Take this message home: Pack this up as a valuable experience and approach your future challenges with eagerness to learn rather than just passing exams. Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: So many good answers, but one angle still not covered.

When I went to college, there was always the *test out*/*challenge* option available. At the start of the class you could take the final. If you passed you got a grade of CR (credit -- pass with no effect on GPA) and that was that.

I recall some case where somebody challenged a course about two-thirds of the way through (something came up and he couldn't finish...) so the rule appears to not be restricted to start of the course.

I can't imagine anybody looking down on what happened here as you obviously could have passed a challenge, and the instructor may have recorded it as such.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: *This is an edited version of my original answer to one of your deleted questions*.

Juan, you have written about a feeling of panic, which doesn't subside. Panic is a metabolic process. Take it to the doctor. Model the behavior you will want your future patients to exhibit. Please see a doctor.

Seeking treatment for panic is not easy, but neither is living with panic. I know because my son has Tourette Syndrome, OCD, specific phobias, and anxiety. I have seen how panic affects him.

He's been in treatment for a year and a half and is making progress.

Someday you will be a doctor. Wouldn't Dr. Alvez send young Juan to see a doctor about this panic? Show your respect for the profession you want to enter, by allowing a medical provider to start to help you.

A family practitioner, or a student clinic doctor or nurse practitioner, can talk over your options with you. Just print out the question you posted here, and show it to the doctor.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Let me add a very plain and straightforward answer:

It's fine.
==========

Yes, what you did is morally acceptable. Some aspects:

Effort
------

Grades are and should be given for results achieved, not for the amount of effort invested or relative improvement. Plain and simple.

The people reading your grades later are not interested in the least about how much effort you invested. They are interested in whether you can speak that language or not. So you are not cheating *them*.

Fairness
--------

Your co-students might be irritated that you got the mark without effort, but ... frankly, it is very normal that different students have to invest different effort in a course. Heck, there are also cases where one student hates a course and has to put in 20 hours of work just to barely pass; and another student loves the course and has to put in 0 hours of extra work. Is this "immoral" as well? No, of course not. What good would it do your co-student if you just sat in class, dreaming, wasting everybodies time. So you did not cheat *them* either. Neither did you cheat your professor, as you were very open with them.

If you really had cheated, for example by having a native speaker do a written test and writing your name on it, *then* you would have harmed your co-students by lessening the validity of the grade in and itself (e.g., if word came out that this is a common occurence in this particular school, everybody with a real grade would be under suspicion, devaluating the school itself).

Are you allowed to enjoy your education?
----------------------------------------

Finally, it is not only usual, but also just fine that *every* student choses a path through his studies that fits his own interests, enjoyments etc. - it is obvious that a student who does what he enjoys (or already can do, maybe partly or on a hobby level) will get better results, statistically. Not only better marks, but also better understanding etc. Doing things you enjoy will usually make it easier for you, and this is fine. School/education does not get better if it is artificially made harder.

This does not mean that students should "game the system", but that school/education systems should be structured in a way which allows people to live out their interests and predispositions. Of course, a common base set of knowledge is necessary, but this is easily achieved structurally by having courses being compulsary. The grading system makes sure that people are not just fooling around.

So, having fun during your education does not cheat anyone, either.

Drawback
--------

You did do yourself a slight disfavour. A "mirror student" who already knew that language as well as you did, and got all the same marks as you, could have picked a *real* course for that last point (maybe in addition to your language course, if that is allowed in your school system). That student would have the exact same end result as you, *plus* some additional bonus. An employer would, everything else being the same, hire the other guy instead of you.

This alone easily balances out the fact that you filled up your grades with an easy 1-point course. You did not cheat; you weighed your options and decided on a permitted course, being open about it to your professor. All is well.

So, at the most, you cheated yourself a little bit. But you made up by doing other worthwhile stuff, you presumably did not waste the time you saved by not going to that course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I can assure you, that there will never be any consequences from this, that's for certain. You asked the professor - she allowed it. It's her problem, not yours. You won't ever lose this degree, because you did something totally legal.

In terms of morality: Those grades are - in the end - not made for universities, but rather for companies to have a rating of your competence. And you ARE competent in this language. I think there is no moral problem at all.
You have a degree in something you really know. That's only fair.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_9: I was very ill for one semester's exams, and was given an oral exam for one subject. The professor (who was by no stretch of the imagination one to short-cut the system, and was reputed to have obtained his doctorate on the basis of a one-page thesis) explained that originally ALL examinations were oral and it allows the examiners to assess whether they need to extend the inquisition to determine whether the candidate is competent or whether the candidate has an acceptable knowledge of the subject matter.

Naturally, as the number of students grew, this system became incongruous and written examinations became the accepted method. With the rise of the universal doctrine of "fair", a written exam also ensures (at least in theory) that the same assessment criteria are applied to each candidate.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_10: The only thing that really matters is this: do you have a mastery of the subject you studied? The grade you get, and the degree you are awarded, should only be a documentation of this mastery. The purpose of an exam or a paper is to demonstrate your mastery of the subject. The grade is just a way of keeping score and communicating your master to people outside the field.

In light of that perspective, I would argue it's entirely ethical to be awarded a grade based on a personalized study and testing plan with the professor. As long as you are able to demonstrate your mastery of the subject matter *somehow*, you legitimately earned the grade, even if you didn't demonstrate that mastery the same way the other students did. The objective of college is gaining the knowledge, not getting a grade or a diploma. If the professor judged that you had an adequate mastery of the subject to award you the grade on the basis of an oral exam, that is his prerogative. Legally speaking, that is defensible as a reasonable accommodation for a disability under the ADA.

Bottom line:

If you cheat your way to graduation with a 4.0 GPA but don't master the subject matter, you might be able to get hired but you'll quickly be fired for incompetence. As a hiring manager I have to screen out these "paper tigers". I can't tell you how many people I've interviewed who had master's degrees but couldn't perform the most basic skills in their career field.

If you don't have a degree but do have a mastery of the subject matter, it might be harder for you to get your first job, but you'll keep it and advance because you're competent. After your first job, it's your work history that matters much more than your degree, except in licensed professions like law or medicine which have a degree as a prerequisite for licensing. (And even then it's not cast in stone: for instance in Virginia and some other states you can sit for the Bar exam and be admitted to the bar without a law degree if you study law under an attorney or judge)
Upvotes: -1


<issue_start>username_0: In creating a final exam for my course, I would like to use problems from a textbook that I did not assign to the course. Do I need to reference the source on the final exam paper or is it not necessary?<issue_comment>username_1: *tl;dr*: it's **not OK**

*Long answer*: I see two aspects here.

1. To use someone else's work without referencing it.

Ask yourself, would you like your students to do the same?
Academics generally agree that plagiarism is not acceptable and constitutes a significant academic misconduct. As a professor, you are seen as a model example by your students. Show them a good example by always referencing your sources (in lectures, exercises, and of course your research papers).

2. To use previously published problems in the final exam.

Policies may vary from School to School, but in many places it is expected that the final exam (and any assessment in fact) consists of problems, which are new to students. If problems are copied from a textbook, how do you know that students did not have access to these problems, and to their solutions before the exam? There is no control over it, which puts some (lucky) students in more favourite position, not because they learned the material better, but because they ran across the same textbook you are using.

For both reasons, it is **not OK** to use textbook problems in the exam, and it is **not OK** to use textbook problems without the reference.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I generally agree with [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/80507/20058), but I would like to put it in another perspective:

*Can you propose any (really) good reason for not citing the reference?*
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I have never seen a university exam in which problems are cited to sources. The vast majority of exams I've seen are *intellectually derivative* on other sources: for many courses, an exam which is not intellectually derivative would be difficult to write and very painful for students to take.

In my opinion, in current academic culture course exams are not viewed as **academic works** which are subject to the standards of plagiarism: there is no pretense of originality. However, copying exams from standard sources has issues other than intellectual priority: as already mentioned, it may give an advantage to students who are consulting those sources. In my opinion, it is a good practice when writing an exam to never copy a problem **wholly and directly** from a standard source. A question can always be reworded. For a large array of problems in STEM fields, parameters can be adjusted or other incidental features changed, creating a problem that to a sufficiently expert eye looks *isomorphic* to the textbook problem, but is different enough so that someone who would feel that way has mastered the material.

When I write undergraduate exams, I usually do so with my own study materials and exams given in past iterations of the course in view (and I also give these to the students, in most cases). With this in view, I try to create an exam which has the right amount of similarity to past exams and review materials: neither too much nor too little. For intermediate undergraduate level math courses, I have found that having one problem or part of a problem be basically identical (though somewhat reworded) to something in the study materials has a positive effect on the course: as the students run through several midterms and the final exam, they learn that the study materials are actually to be carefully studied and mastered, which increases their learning. In general I find that changes that I regard as relatively modest -- e.g. swapping out one problem for a "cognate problem" -- are often regarded as "completely different" by students.

In short: you can and probably should use other sources for inspiration and calibration purposes when writing an exam, and I have never seen anyone document their sources as if an exam were an academic paper. (In most cases one would not be documenting the "true author" of the work but simply identifying the previous person in the borrowing chain.) However, you should not blindly copy problems from other sources, and you should watch carefully to ensure that your students regard your exams as having a sufficient amount of novelty. To do otherwise is to shirk one of the most basic duties of the course instructor.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]


<issue_start>username_0: There is a relatively new website: <http://professorwatchlist.org/> whose [mission](http://professorwatchlist.org/index.php/about-us):

>
> is to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.
>
>
> Help us identify, and expose more professors who have demonstrated liberal bias in the classroom.
>
>
>

What are the likely consequences for a US academic that is *exposed* as having a liberal bias in the classroom?<issue_comment>username_1: If that website is really about what it says it's about, then I don't think there's anything to worry about. Academics should be open to criticism, especially if they are vocal about their political opinions. Academic freedom means the government should not interfere with what professors teach, not that they should be shielded from criticism. There certainly is political bias among university professors and it's not unhealthy *per se* to question that via independent media.

Off course, this website is very partial and lumps together extremists, people under FBI scrutiny or who were convicted with people with simply non-conservative opinions, and people whose research actually contradicts some of the American conservative positions. That last bit is probably the only worrisome aspect.

I suspect readers of that website are really looking for a confirmation of opinions they already have. I don't think it's going to have a lot of traffic from random people (apart from the one you're generating with that link). That is also true of blogs and website from the other side of the political spectrum.

If such websites challenge facts because they conflict with their political opinions, then there is a threat and it's our job to fight it with science, not with political activism.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I very much doubt we need to be concerned with it *at this point*.

Collections like this have existed for a long time. When I was an undergrad, a minor incident on campus got spun up into Clear Evidence of Oppression (tm) and gets trotted out now, more than a decade and a half later. The site is, at the moment, pretty poorly designed, primarily a collection of innuendo and "X professor was mean to me", and like many user-submission dependent sites, is currently somewhat inundated with obviously fake examples.

Beyond that, the very pretense of the site, that there's a clear bias in favor of professors pushing liberal ideas that pervades and dominates academia also implies that exposure of a professor doing just that...won't do much, because an academics career is primarily dictated by other academics.

The list is only a threat given moves to shift the evaluation of academics into the political sphere. But those are separate actions, that should (or should not) be opposed on their own merit, because they have implications far beyond a random PAC's website.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think this is obviously backlash from the University professors who have been publicly named-and-shamed over the past 4 months for holding conservative views. <NAME> and <NAME> are the first that spring to mind, however there have been others.

Frankly, I don't think it will have the same effect and there's nothing to worry about. In all the examples of conservatives losing their jobs for speaking out against liberal views publicly (or privately and getting dox'd), the Dean of the institution or some other power figure within the university was the one to make it official and actually punish the conservative professor. Get them fired, academic leave, open letters, etc. The reverse just doesn't seem anywhere near as likely - an overtly conservative dean punishing a liberal professor? You'd have more chance of finding a unicorn. What i'm getting at is that liberal privilege exists within universities, and conservatives, ironically, don't have much sway over things. Liberal professors really don't need to be worried - but i'd still say that for the next 1 or 2 years i'd try and check as much of your own political baggage, whatever it may be, at the classroom door.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: The following situation occurred:

* I was asked to modify a figure (originally published in a paper) to be used in a non-further-determined publication by my professor.
* I did **substantially** modify the figure: I redrew the figure from scratch in a vector program, added colours and decoration and made it generally more attractive.
* Now, half a year later this same figure or graphic appears in a book and just holds the small remark *© Name of professor*. Neither my name nor a reference to the original figure is given.
* I checked the general acknowledgements of the book and there is no mention of my name.

My question is: How to proceed from here? Naturally I don't want to deteriorate the relationship with my employer but I need to raise this issue, especially so that it does not happen again in the future (my professor asks me on a regular basis to draw graphics for him). Should I insist that my name should somehow be included (second edition of the book, online errata etc.)? What would the copyright implications be for a) not mentioning the creator of the graphic (me) and b) not referencing the original work?

Some context:
I work as a research assistant and I am not employed primarily to do these drawings though - when requested - I usually do them in my work time. The book in which the figure appeared is the output of a research institution (though clearly directed at the general public) and I am not sure if the book is to be sold, i.e. if it could be considered commercial use.

Edit: I may not have explained myself well. In my opinion the resulting image is not a mere modification of a figure but a piece of work that requires creativity and year-long practices with a graphics program.<issue_comment>username_1: How to proceed from here?

You don't do anything. You did something small your supervisor asked for, and he used the figure that you made for him.

It's very unusual for figures to be labeled with the name of the actual person that made it, and it would be a lot to expect this without asking / demanding this beforehand. Take the closest textbook and you'll find that indeed, a lot of figures will be copied from publications and references are included. However, there will also be custom-made figures that don't have any note. And you can be quite sure these figures are not drawn by the authors themselves, but by their students or employees.

There would probably also be no copyright implication, as this sounds like you just re-created some schematic figure and you just copied the idea, not the work itself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Just my two cents: (which, I have a lot of, as I open a lot of answers this way it seems)

Take this as gained experience, and next time you are asked to rework graphics to a large extent, ask about how the rework will be credited beforehand. Now to be fair, I have not seen many instances where graphs, etc have actually had reference to who made the graph. This may be due to the idea that the graph/image is not as important as the data it conveys.

I would like to ask one thing. Is there any line in the acknowledgements along the lines of "thanks to all who have helped me make this book possible?" If so, you would be counted among that number. If not, just chock this up to one of two things: The author is too full of him/herself to recognize the work of others in a publication he/she put out, or two the author simply forgot to include everyone who helped out due to a simple slip of the mind.

I would HOPE it would be the latter, but I know enough published professors who would fall into the former category. And the sad part of it all, is they are from the community college level.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: To my mind, the most important element of what you have written is this:

>
> not referencing the original work
>
>
>

Since the figure was originally published in another work, it is absolutely required that the original work be cited; to do otherwise is (self)plagiarism. That part of the issue is clear, if it is a scientific publication. If it is a "pop science" publication that doesn't have *any* references at all, though, it falls into a general grey area of "crappy non-professional publication" for which no better can be expected and which you probably don't want to be associated with in any case.

In either case, an acknowledgement of your work would be appropriate. Failing to acknowledge you is probably not formally actionable, but is a clear indicator of a potential problem. It's also possible that it's not intentional but simply an editing failure---screwing up one citation in a book would not be at all unusual.

So, how should you proceed? I would recommend approaching your professor from the point of view that this is a mistake, and seeing how they respond. Something like:

>
> "I was looking through the book, and it looks like the reference for this image was accidentally omitted. What do you think we should do about it?"
>
>
>

If your professor is well-intentioned and this is a mistake, they should have suggestions for how to fix it (e.g., errata). If your professor just blows it off, however, then you know you're dealing with somebody with poor scientific publishing ethics, and should plan to start extracting yourself from that environment. If it bugs you, you can contact the publisher *later*, but wait until you are secure in a place where your professor no longer has power over you.
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: I received the decision letter for the manuscript I submitted to one of the top journal in the area of network security. The editor recommended the publication of article after minor revision but I disagree with few arguments made by a review and also highlighted by the editor in his own recommendation.
I know it is acceptable to disagree the reviewer's comments but in my case editor also emphasized same argument which is made by the reviewer.
The reviewer and editor appreciated the performance evaluation we made in article but also asked for adding the simulation. Even though we already implemented the scheme in an automated protocol analysis tool, presented the results and discussed comprehensively.

I am a bit confused because at this stage I don't want to miss the golden opportunity of publishing my work in a top notch journal. Maybe I am misunderstanding what exactly editor want to ask. I decided to write an email to editor but my colleague stopped me and said it will not give a positive impression.

What should be my next step?

* Implement the protocol scheme in another tool (which in my opinion is strange thing)?
* Submit a response with my revision that addresses the rest of the arguments and explains why I disagree with few comments (which might push our article for another cycle of revision or can be rejected)?
* Send a personal email to the editor asking for clarification (which might make a poor impression on the editor)?
* Something else?<issue_comment>username_1: A general principle that may increase your chance of acceptance is as follows: **the reviewer is always right**.

Of course, this does not mean that you cannot actually disagree with the reviewer. But at least for your answer letter, you should package your disagreement so that it can be understood as agreement. For example:

* If the reviewer criticizes the lack of a performance experiment that you actually described in your draft, say *"We agree that a formal validation alone would be insufficient to show the benefits of our technique. In fact, our previous draft already contained a section describing its implementation in a protocol verification tool and a simulation based on that implementation (Sect. X). However, we see that the structure of the paper was such that this section could easily be overlooked. In the updated submission, we have improved the structure of the paper as follows: (describe small changes)"*
* If the reviewer critizes the lack of a usability experiment (because you have concentrated on performance experiments), say: *"We further agree that usability is another important concern of XYZ schemes. While the current submission focuses on the performance aspect, we have updated the Future Work section to give an outlook on planned user studies."*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: If I'm reading the final sentence of your first paragraph correctly, the editor/reviewer is asking you to do something that you've already done. If that's the case, I don't see what the problem is. I would write in the point-by-point response letter

"We did x, with \_\_\_\_\_\_ results, and have described this at lines xxx-xxx"

There is no need to point out that you already did it and they apparently just missed it. This way, the quoted material is correct, they think you were responsive (even though you didn't actually have to do anything), and you don't have to risk annoying/embarrassing them by saying the equivalent "Uh, we already did that. Check your reading comprehension skills."
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: We are in a physics department. My supervisor, upon reading a Physical Review Letters (PRL) paper, concludes (and claims that the paper also concludes) that the classical central limit theorem (CLT) is false under the (usual) assumptions stated. He insists on this result and wants me to say/imply that in my manuscript because he finds fault with me making use of the classical CLT in a few statistical tests that I have utilized in the paper.

Question:
(1) Would you say that my supervisor is scientifically incompetent?
(2) How should I handle such a situation?

The paper is single-authored by me but he says that the university requires him to vet journal submissions (for quality) even though he is not a co-author which I accept.

(EDIT) More info regarding the context:

Just to clarify further, copied from my comment below: In my paper, I was simply stating the assumptions of classical CLT so that I could make use of the resulting normal distributions for some statistical tests. It was not a particular usage/application of classical CLT but simply a statement of the assumptions that would need to be held to recover normal distributions for the application of statistical tests I was using.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> (1) Would you say that my supervisor is scientifically incompetent?
>
>
>

If he says the CLT as stated and proved in textbooks is false, he is obviously wrong. "Scientifically incompetent" sounds like a very sweeping statement that I would avoid endorsing given the information currently available. He could simply be misunderstanding something in the language of the paper, or his knowledge of rigorous math could have an embarrassing gap (wouldn't be the first time), or it could be a failure of communication between you where you have a subtle misunderstanding of his position.

In any case, textbook CLT is correct, no question about it.

>
> (2) How should I handle such a situation?
>
>
>

An honest intellectual dialogue with him to clarify the issue would be ideal, if he is the kind of person who can have such a dialogue when he is in the wrong and not back himself into an emotional corner and become upset and unable to reason. If you think that's risky, try to find another professor you trust and can consult about the issue, and if they agree with you, ask them to participate in a discussion with the advisor to make him understand your point. And try approaching any discussions with an open mind, in case it's you who are in error about what his position is exactly.

Finally, it's possible that your advisor really is scientifically incompetent, so if you are unable to make him come around to your view and conclude that he is intellectually unsuited to be your advisor, you should probably switch advisors. In any case, under no circumstance should you concede to his demand to deny the truth of a standard formulation of CLT in your paper. Good luck!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think that some supervisors may try to "teach" you something, which they perceive as passing on some sort of "knowledge" of theirs.

However, it may turn out (as it probably did in your case) that this "knowledge" was simply a hunch, a misunderstanding, or simply an uncompleted thought. Maybe they (half-heartedly) intended for this to start a discussion that would result in a new, revolutionary way of thinking about the CLT. I say half-heartedly, because they didn't even explain their idea.

I think there are many more and better ways to assess the scientific competence of your supervisor, like scientific output, quality/impact of lectures, etc. If he is indeed not suited to be advising students on how to do science, it should be apparent elsewhere (or even everywhere else).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Be **absolutely** certain about what you both mean here. CLT has a very well established proof. It is almost inconceivable to think that a *disproof* of such a fundamental mathematical theorem would ever be published in PRL over a pure mathematics journal.

This leads us to infer, quite justifiably, I think, that the PRL paper *must* be addressing a popular *application* of CLT in some field of Physics. The conclusion here would then be that CLT is an inappropriate tool to analyze the system under study - *not* that CLT itself is invalid. It's not uncommon at all for Physics to change its mathematical tools from time to time as more is learned about the systems those tools are meant to model.

I would suggest that you take the time to sit down and discuss this with your supervisor until you both have a clear understanding of each others' ideas. Confrontation is not going to be productive here. If you can't clearly express your ideas to each other then the likelihood of producing a quality paper is likewise quite low. Sorting out this misunderstanding will likely do both of you some good.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: Another approach to the one given by other excellent answers is to avoid the problem altogether! Do you really need to use the central limit theorem? Maybe not, maybe you could do away with approximations altogether, or switch to some other approximation tool, like some simulations (maybe the bootstrap).

If you want advice about alternative methods, you could ask that as a new question at <https://stats.stackexchange.com/>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: As other commentators have pointed out, it is important to establish exactly what your supervisor is asserting. It would be somewhat unusual to claim that a well-known and well-vetted mathematical theorem is wrong, without some specific argument constituting a counter-proof. Before you make any big decisions, make **absolutely sure** that your supervisor is objecting to the actual theorem (when correctly stated) and does not have an objection merely to a misstatement or misapplication of the theorem.

Now, supposing that he really is objecting to the CLT, as correctly stated, I think the next step is this. If he is of the view that a well-known mathematical theorem is false, then *the onus is on him* to clearly and rigorously show his reasoning and establish the correctness of his own view with the mathematical community. If he is right (he is not) and he can prove it (he can't) then his discovery would be one of the most impressive discoveries in the history of probability theory, and it would win him permanent acclaim in the field. It is up to him to publish his argument if he has one. In the meantime, there is a wide literature asserting proofs of the theorem that have been accepted by the mathematical community, with thousands of trained eyes scrutinising it for centuries. He has no legitimate standing to block your work on the basis that he does not accept the theorem.

I would suggest that you firstly bring the matter up with him in a polite but forceful manner, and insist that you regard the classical CLT to be correct, and you will not say anything to the contrary in your work. If he is going to use his vetting prerogative to seek to pressure you to say something that you (along with the rest of the mathematical community) regard as untrue, then you should bypass him completely and publish your work without his input. If necessary you could ask another academic to take over the vetting role, or simply bypass it altogether.

Lastly, I disagree a bit with some other commentators regarding the issue of competence. Even if your supervisor is wrong on this issue, I wouldn't assume he is incompetent in any broader sense (at least not on this evidence alone). Mathematical theorems can be hard, and the proof of the CLT is not trivial. It is entirely possible that your supervisor is a competent physicist in other respects and just has a "blind spot" in this aspect of probability theory (which is not even within his direct field). If it is remains feasible to work effectively with this supervisor despite your disagreement on this issue, and if that is the only thing you notice where he is in error, there is probably scope to learn plenty of other things from him.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I am transitioning from junior to senior researcher status. I have several publications as first author, many as coauthor, and a few as senior (last and corresponding) author.

As people perceive differently the role of authors according to their position, especially when looking briefly at a scholarly paper, I am wondering when it is most appropriate to transition from first to senior author.

Does it depend on biologic age, academic age, ranking, tenure, or what else?

My field of interest is cardiovascular research, but I think that a general answer followed by some details on the main different academic fields would be beneficial for ACADEMIA readership.<issue_comment>username_1: I think in most fields in which author order denotes the relative level of contribution, while people talk about the last author as being the "senior" author, this is more of an artifact of the fact that the PI of the group generally makes the least contribution to the work. I have never heard of some one striving to be senior/last author. Rather, the author order simply reflects the order of contribution.

If I have the highest academic rank, am the oldest, been in academia the longest, have a name that comes last alphabetically, and obtained the funding, but contributed the most to the project, I would want first authorship. More often than not what happens is people in my lab do most of the work and I make contributions through guiding the research. This generally leads me to making the smallest contribution and naturally being the last author even though I have the highest academic rank, am the oldest, been in academia the longest, have a name that comes first alphabetically.

A related question is when do you start structuring your research program such that you make more less "first author" like contributions. This tends to happen naturally as your time for research decreases and the number of projects that you are involved in increases. Typically this means you have enough funding for a small team of research assistants, PhD students and Postdocs.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In my experience, regarding fields in Faculty of Science ( biology, chemistry, physics, geog...etc ) it is requered by the statute, that if you are the associate professor, you need to have certain amount of senior authorship.
Regarding research institutes, as far as I know, if you are PI you are always the senior author, a corresponding author can vary but usually is from person that was most involved in research.
my university, not allow students ( PhD candidates ) to be senior or corresponding author.
Some institutions, make differences between first, co-author, senior and corresponding author. General advice is to make sure at your institution what are rules, or in your coutry.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: For life sciences, usually until you get a faculty position (PI) first-author papers are those that count, and once you get a position last-author papers count.

When I say "papers count", I mean that until you become PI, first-author papers have the most weight when applying for fellowships and faculty positions. For PIs, last-author papers count the most for grants and tenure. By the way, this is not just informal weighting: some institutions and funding agencies explicitly state that only co-first (for pre-PIs) / only co-last (for PIs) papers count, and if there is an exception you need to justify it.

So I think that if this applies to your field, the transition point is well-defined. However there may be grey areas (for example in countries where there are intermediate positions such as "super postdocs").
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Depends on the culture of a particular field. Some fields use alphabetic order to remove this problem, so there is no one true answer, if you do not specify the field you are participating. You may take the answer of a *username_1* as a good rule of thumb.

In short, the first person is the one that actually wrote the paper. The later ones have an order of contribution/hierarchy/original idea for the paper/you name it...

And the particular culture really changes how to give an answer to your question.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: Last semester, I was teaching a class where
there is a small assignment (~2% of the total course assessment)
that students need to submit every week.
Unfortunately, some of the students joined the class late,
due to add/drop forms that needed to be signed manually,
or for other unknown reasons.

Is it fair to give zeros to students who missed early assignments
because they added the class late?
There were a few students who may have missed 3 or 4 weeks of assignments.

### Response to comment

*Q: Were the students not able to physically be present?
Were the students not able to predict that they would take your class?*

They were physically able to be present.
Some students may not have been able to predict
that they were able to take my class.
For example, one student had to add the class after the add date deadline,
because he was admitted late to the university.

### Edit

After thinking things through,
I checked that the last date for adding the course is the Monday of week 2,
and the first weekly assignment is also assigned and due in week 2.
I found in the data that there were several students
who did not attend in week 1,
but all of these students attended and submitted
the weekly assignment in week 2.

Consequently, all of the students in the course
were registered by week 2,
and would have been able to submit all the weekly assignments.
Thus any students who did not submit a weekly assignment
deserve to get zero for that assignment,
unless they have a reason to be excused.<issue_comment>username_1: No, it is not. Some accommodation must be made, either in how the grade is generated, or preferably, with an opportunity to make up the work. The latter discourages gaming your calendar.

Three or four weeks, though, is ridiculous. If they were in the class by all but their official registration, they should have found a way, or you should have found them a way, to turn in assignments.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Yes, it absolutely is. Assuming this is a taught course, students who join three or four weeks late have missed substantial instruction. In the U.S. four weeks is more than a quarter of a semester.

*However,* you must set the date of the first assignment at least a couple of days later than the official drop/add date. Students who join during drop/add may have to scurry to catch up, but they ought to expect that.

Of course, I've made the assumption that there *is* an official drop/add date, and that it is reasonable compared to the duration of the course, *e.g.* seven days for a 16-week semester. If not, that's a large problem, and one to take to the Faculty Senate or a similar body. Having students join a class at arbitrary times during a term seriously compromises the quality of instruction for the entire class and abuses the instructor.

If there is not an official drop/add date or the drop/add period is long compared to the duration of the course, then you must make accommodation for students who enter late. As username_1 has already written, that should be to allow time to make up the work, not by changing the grading plan for those students.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: At most institutions, the last day to add a course is set up by the institution, not the professor. We have an obligation to honor that, which means allowing students to enroll, with full full privileges, up to the last day they're allowed to.

Giving 0's for assignments they've missed is inconsistent with that. I prefer to simply ignore previous assignments of the sort you're describing - if their score for that part of the class would have been based on 13 weekly assignments, now it's based out of 11. (Sadly, this can be a little hard to administer depending how you calculate grades.) Alternatively, they can be asked to make up the work; it *is* the responsibility of students to keep up with the courses they've enrolled in, either by auditing them while deciding or making up what they missed, so it's reasonable to ask them to do the assignment on a reasonably short time scale (I usually like two weeks, which should be enough time to avoid excessive overlap with any other commitments, but one week would be appropriate if the assignments are short and it's not an exam-laden week).
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Giving zeros to late-joiners is only fair if you have it stated in the syllabus (or otherwise communicated it in a way accessible to them).

A better solution, balancing fairness to the student and the professor, is to give them the same amount of time to complete all overdue assignments *starting with the enrollment cutoff*. For example, if four one-week assignments have been graded and a fifth is announced at the start of week 5, then give all new students one week to finish all five assignments and be caught up.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In general, I would say "no", it isn't fair. Further, you may be promoting the appearance that you are penalizing someone for wanting to take YOUR class, even though that might not be your intent.

The school policy, apparently, allows students to add classes late. Your policy makes it appear you are contradicting the school policy.

In general, I believe this policy makes you appear unreasonable. Students will come and go, but you will remain and so will your reputation.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: My solution to this is to have a certain number of low or missing assignments dropped from each student's weighted total at the end of the semester, and to have this number be at least as many assignments as in the add/drop period. So then I think it is fair in this case for late-adds to get zero on those assignments; they can still conceivably get top marks for the course, but they're working without a safety net. And the rule and processing is uniform for all students. I don't recall any major complaints after I explain the drop policy to late-adders.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_7: Yes, it is absolutely ethical, **if and only if** students have access to the necessary resources, including this homework policy, from the beginning of the semester, regardless of whether they are officially registered.

I've had an "adding late does not excuse missing homework" policy in my syllabus for years, partly as a defense mechanism against the long waiting lists my classes usually start with, and partly to avoid students missing important early material that they will need later in the course. Moreover, I prioritize the waiting list by the initial homework scores, and I actually remove students from the waiting list if they don't submit homework.

In short, if you want to add my course late, you must demonstrate that you have engaged with the early course material, because otherwise, you're going to be totally lost later.

But to make sure this is fair, I release all my homeworks on the public course web site (not behind some stupid password-protected LMS), along with lecture notes and recordings of the actual lectures. Moreover, the TAs and graders do not know which students are officially registered; they grade everything that is submitted. The additional work is a minimal burden on the course staff, which quickly fades out as registered students drop out and active students take their place in the official roster.

Being officially registered for a class is a mere administrative hurdle. It has no bearing on the students' ability to do the work.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: Even if there are no problems at all and all students do all the assignments and sit the exam as planned, it's not 100% fair, because assignments and exams are an inaccurate way to assess students' capabilities. So, the usual system is already a compromise, but it's the only practical way we can teach and evaluate how well the students have mastered the subject. So, we must not pretend as if any particular system we use for assignments and exams is the perfect gold standard such that upholding that gold standard becomes the main goal. This mistaken attitude leads to this whole idea that you could give students zero points for missed assignments, even if missing the assignments was beyond the control of the students.

The students are there to master the subject, the Prof. is there to teach the students. The system of assignments and exams exists to help facilitate this, we're not there to religiously uphold the rules, to make the rules the main issue when fixing problems. If there are problems with the assignments, you have to go back to basics and think about how you can best assess how well the students are mastering the course.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: In the light of students being able to exploit the late entry to avoid having to do assignments, it sounds fair to the rest of the class who had to actually do the work, that late entries be given zero.

Trying to find the middle ground, e.g. having the due date after the late entries cut-off date, or handing out the assignment to the new students with a few days to get it done, sounds like a good idea.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: It's not fair to allow new students to add a class but then penalize their grades; you need to give late adds a reasonable chance to make up the work that they have missed. (In addition, this will let them catch up on learning that they have missed.)

Another answer suggested that students should do the work speculatively while waiting to be formally added to the class, but this may not be feasible: if I'm on the waiting list for 9 different classes I'm not going to do 9 different assignments just in case. (This is especially problematical if I'm on the wait list for multiple classes in the same time slot -- I can't even sit in on all of them.)

If there is critical work that students will have missed if they add the class at the deadline then ask the university for an exception to the late add policy, and be prepared to have your request denied.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_11: I'm not instructor, but I am a recent student so I'll throw my opinion into the ring.

Based on the following:

* Whether or not students are physically capable of attending the class is case by case, and may (almost certainly will) depend on factors outside of your visibility or the student's control
* Students trying to take high-demand classes will often wait for slots to open post-kickoff because of enrolled students dropping the class, and it's not usually reasonable to expect students to do classwork for several extra classes while waiting for such a chance to appear
* I don't think I have ever met anyone in my entire educational career who waited to register for a class in order to deliberately get out of doing the early assignments
* Since it's before the add drop date, it may be out of your hands anyway, check university policy or ask other instructors
* It doesn't really reflect life after school. Most companies' hiring processes are agnostic to concepts like application windows
* As an instructor it's your job to teach the students the material, and judge them fairly based on how well they know it, so from that perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to penalize otherwise possibly bright students for missing some sessions before adding the class.

A compromise is your best option. If they miss a very small portion of the class assignments, less than a few percentage points, perhaps just drop those grades from their average. If they miss a larger amount of work, consider allowing them to complete those assignments (or similar ones that cover the same material) for some amount of credit.

Anecdotally, when I was taking classes, most of the instructors with large class sizes (often the physics and mathematics courses, which are required for many majors and where there were sometimes 100+ students per instructor) had just such an alternate version of each homework assignment planned out in advance for just the occasion of students missing work due to circumstances outside of their control (late add, emergency travel, etc)
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: We had a master's student working on our project. He set up a database for us, and wrote some of the initial code with me in a pair programming session. At one point, he had more commits to the repository than any of the other students working on the project. Then he went to do an internship for the summer, and after that my advisor did not want to keep him on the project for some reason, even though I thought he was friendly and easy to work with.

My advisor chose not to list him as a coauthor, and put him in the acknowledgements section instead. However, there was another guy (a professor) who didn't write any code at all, and wasn't there throughout most of the project, but he wrote the introduction and related work sections for us, and he got listed as a coauthor, even though he probably did a day's worth of work on the project (maybe two). In fact, my advisor gave him the coveted last author position, even though my advisor came up with the idea and directed the whole project.

What determines who gets put as a coauthor, and who gets put in the acknowledgement sections?<issue_comment>username_1: I've worked with people on projects that I thought should've been coauthors, but was told not to include them. Part of the reason was that they were not one of the official collaborators on the project. They helped, but in no way contributed to the actual manuscript.

In general, if someone is a co-author, they will be given the opportunity to make revisions on the manuscript as it goes through the peer-review process. It is advisable to keep this list to a minimum, so that only the core group of contributors are listed as authors. Otherwise, the revision process can take too much time and publishing the manuscript gets difficult.

If someone helped to write the grant proposal that funded the project, they will almost certainly be listed as a co-author. Another thing to keep in mind is that a co-author will be a representative for your manuscript, so it is advisable that they completely understand the scope of the project and research material. And, sometimes its just good to have someone well-respected in the field as a co-author, even if all they did was "write the introduction", because they have experienced insight. So, if they can get involved after most of the research work is done, they can contribute to the manuscript nicely in just a few hours. This is in contrast to a student who did weeks of coding on the project, but may not be able to contribute any real substance to the manuscript.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Usually, the key indicator for co-authorship is the contribution of **creative content**. Did the student have own ideas that improved the paper? Was the program/database he wrote just a technical thing, or did it contribute scientifically? These are some questions that can help make/understand the decision.

There is a fine line to walk sometimes. Especially [between different subject areas](http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1911), there can be discrepancies who gets to be co-author. Sometimes everybody is counted, sometimes only the first author and his advisor(s) without any students.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **It's complicated.**

The norms for co-authorship are across the board and highly field dependent. Generally two big ones seem to be pretty consistent though:

1. Wrote or edited the manuscript that is submitted.
2. Made a significant creative contribution as [noted by ian\_itor](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/84132/7269).

The idea of if software development is a creative contribution is still hotly contested. One norm that seems to be developing is that developers are typically only credited as a co-author if software development is a significant aspect of the publication. For example, chemistry papers may mention an "internally developed tool" used for analysis and may only credit the developer in the acknowledgements.

Personally I belong to the school of thought that software development is at least in part a creative endeavor. As such, I would suggest the following:

1. If the software is the point of the manuscript, the person should be included as a co-author or [as part of a development team](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/83865/where-to-draw-the-line-for-authorship-for-a-software-announcement-paper).
2. If they software is not the point of the manuscript, but the research is dependent upon the software, they should be included if they were involved in design and architecture.
3. If the research could not have been completed with out the assistance of the person (ex. they optimized an algorithm to run on a distributed cluster) they should be included as a co-author.
4. If the software is incidental to the research (ex. chemistry paper, but a tool was written for analysis) then the development team should be individually recognized in the acknowledgements.

Generally I feel it is also rude of the manuscript authors if developer contributions are not acknowledged at all.
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: I just turned sixteen this January, and I have started thinking about where I will go to pursue research in theoretical physics and mathematics. I live in India, and, sadly speaking, research here in India is awful, even though many claims of scientific advancements in India are made. First, I would like to share what I do at home.

I have mastered differential and integral calculus, and I have independently proved, and discovered some of my own proofs of theorems in Real Analysis(Proofs which I haven't seen in some other source, but they might exist). I have also independently discovered the well known techniques of solutions to certain kinds of differential equations, without having any knowledge of how to solve them. I continue to explore higher level mathematics, and try my best to prove each theorem I encounter myself.

Now, the thing is, nobody at school, neither the teachers nor my friends, know anything about this. Even my parents are not fully aware about all this, but I try my best to share this with them. At school, the curriculum is such that the teachers are teaching to the test, and a heavy focus on contests and olympiads is laid, and to choose subjects of your own choice, you have to score high enough in subjects like Social Science and English, which don't even matter in research. Unnecessary debates and discussions are held, and I try my best to not share anything with these guys, to prevent getting into an hour long debate on what you should pursue.

In India, the major institutions are the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institute of Science etc, where almost everybody focuses on getting into the IIT. To get an admission in the IIT, a standardised test, comprising of problems from Math, Physics, Chemistry and MAT has to be given. The admissions are solely decided by the score obtained in this test, which comprises of contest-like questions, which do not describe the research capability of the candidate. Even coaching centres have been set up all over the country, which train for this exam(called the JEE exam). The situation is really worse, and recently, I was demotivated by my teacher for not scoring enough in my social science exam. I have gotten used to this.

I would like to get admitted to institutions like MIT, Harvard, and I have read how I apply for them and what are the requirements for admission. The main thing is I have to distinguish myself from others, take part in extra-curricular activities etc, and maybe win math/science contests. But the thing is, I am not great at contests, which are timed, and I rarely would like to participate at school, where conditions are horrible. I have started taking leaves from school, because I think nothing productive is going on there.

Now, I would like to ask if I apply for these institutes, how do I share what I am capable of? As a young mathematician, I think I am really doing well, and will do well in research too. But, other than my notebook, where I write all my thoughts and all my findings, I don't have anything that can show my abilities. If I just tell my abilities to them, like I did here, they would not believe in me, which I understand.

So, my question is, how do I show the institutes my abilities? Is it necessary for me to win contests at national/international levels, which is not that easy?<issue_comment>username_1: If you are not truly a genius there is no way around standard procedures. But if you are:

1. Make a paper
2. Publish it in a journal
3. Get citations and acknowledgements if the work is good

That is how science works.

You can contact a professor closest to you for help. Show some raw paper made by you, and if you truly are capable then he will gladly help. The professor has a realistic set of journals in mind that might be willing to publish your paper. If you have published in some of the top journals, then you have earned a special way around standard procedures.

You do not need any highly branded college diplomas, recognition is all about skill. If you are capable to publish in a top journal without diploma, then I think that you have already accomplished your goal.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: To apply for admission as an undergraduate at ... (MIT, Harvard, etc.) ... their web sites shows the steps you need. There is an exam (SAT, Scholastic Aptitude Test) such applicants may take. Probably there are opportunities to take it in your country as well, but maybe just in one or two cities, so you may have to travel there to do it. (16-year-olds generally haven't published papers.)
Upvotes: 3


<issue_start>username_0: As a part of my PhD project, I wrote a paper. When my supervisor read it, she said “it is perfect and complete, go ahead and publish it yourself because I cannot contribute more to it”. She really meant it and tried to do me a favor.

However, I still think it can be more beneficial for my future to have her name on my paper. Should I insist to have her as a coauthor or it might be useful in the future to have all the credits of a good paper?<issue_comment>username_1: You should be a sole author for two reasons. First, your supervisor did not contribute to the paper. Some journals actually make you write out what each author accomplished, so you would be at a loss there anyway. Second, a sole-authored publication will demonstrate that you can work independently, which looks great to faculty search committees! When you are on the market, they want to hire people who will become independent researchers. You are demonstrating that by sole-authorship! If you want to publish with your supervisor because she is well-known in the field, my suggestion is that you talk with her about an additional paper project that both of you can work on.

On a side note, your supervisor might have described your paper as "perfect and complete," though this is only one reviewer's opinion. Though the paper may be at a stage for journal submission, please be prepared that the 2-5 blind reviewers may have different opinions about what is "perfect and complete." You still may get A LOT of revision requests from them. I'm sure you did a great job, I just don't want you to get discouraged if the reviewers end up being more critical.

Best of luck!!!!
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: **TL;DR: Don't list her as an author, because: 1. She isn't one. 2. It's ok for you to be the sole author.**

First it must be said that the question of what benefits you is the minor consideration in listing the authors of a paper. A scientific paper needs to be attributed to the people who performed the research and/or writeup, and that's that. While there are many cases in which it's not clear whether a person should or shouldn't count as an author because the weight of the contribution is debatable, this is not one of them. So even if it were to help you somehow to list your advisor as an author - it would be inappropriate. Unethical even.

Irrespective of that fact, it's perfectly common and acceptable, and often appreciated, for PhD candidates to write papers of their own. So you're not even risking anything.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: My advice is to ask your supervisor. If she really does not want to go on the paper, ask other colleagues who might have helped you. If she hints otherwise, include her. Being alone on that paper might raise your reputation in a way, but it might also give the impression that you are grandiose and ungrateful and not a teamplayer. And that you don't recognize a situation where you can indebt other people to you at no cost. If in your group, everybody writes their papers with ten co-authors, chances are that being a sole author on a well-published paper will invite bad feelings from your peers.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: I advise clarifying with the supervisor whether "go ahead and publish it yourself because I cannot contribute more to it" meant that you should submit it with only your name in the author list, or whether they meant that in their opinion it was ready for submission and that they had no suggestions for improvement.

At the University where I completed my PhD, and at others Universities of which I have direct knowledge, it was the norm (i.e. expected) to include supervisors as co-authors independent of direct contribution to a paper.

In the case where you are the (otherwise) sole author then the author list would read < self >, < supervisor1 >, < supervisor2 >, ... . And in the case where you were the lead author and had contributions from others then the author list would read < self >, < co-contributor1 >, < co-contributor2 >, ..., < supervisor1 >, < supervisor2 >... .

Additional commentary:

I have not been able to find anything which states this explicitly. I have since found this, which to me indicates that supervisors should only be listed as coauthors if they directly contribute, contradicting what was communicated verbally to me:

>
> List the authors on the title page by full names whenever possible. Please be absolutely sure you have spelled your coauthors’ names correctly. Be sure also to use the form of the names that your coauthors prefer. ***Include only those who take intellectual responsibility for the work being reported, and exclude those who have been involved only peripherally. The author list should not be used in lieu of an acknowledgments section.***
>  ([Additional Information for BSc Honours Dissertation and MSc Research Projects](http://geophysics.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/unit_outlines/AdditionalNotes.pdf "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION for BSc Honours Dissertation  and MSc Research Projects"))
>
>
>

On reflection, this suggests that early papers will normally have supervisors as coauthors (assuming intellectual or tangible contributions to the papers) as the PhD candidate develops as a researcher, but that later papers would only list supervisors if the supervisor has clearly contributed in the same way as would be considered for any other person to be listed as a coauthor.

(Independent of this, I have also seen academic environments where it is politically expedient to list supervisors as coauthors - to keep them happy, so to speak...)
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: I'm a PhD student about to begin writing my first research paper for a software engineering conference. My research is about an approach to measure the performance of software systems. I will evaluate and compare this approach to other state of the art approaches that measure performance to compare the performance of the approach itself and the accuracy.

First, I wanted to know what the goal of research questions are in research papers. Once that is clarified, I believe I would be able to decide if my paper should include research questions.<issue_comment>username_1: A research question is a very important way to frame the main focus and uniqueness of the research paper. It is essential to make sure the research question is focused and relevant, so that the research presented stays 'on topic'.

This is one of the first things that people read, particularly reviewers as it clearly and concisely shows the reader precisely the refined focused purpose of the research presented in the paper. Without it, there can be ambiguity in what the research is about and how the findings are concluded.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think it is important to understand, especially as a new author of research articles, that unless otherwise specified, the term "research question" does not necessarily need to be a sentence or sentences that end in a question mark and actually ask a specific question. On the contrary, a research question is most often not a question at all, but rather an explanation of why the work you are describing is important and how it will advance your field forward.

For example - and this is particularly true within the scientific community: the entire "Introduction" section of a research article acts as the research question. In other words, this section typically gives a background of the research area, explains what work has already been done to advance this field, focuses on what still has yet to be done, and then concludes with what parts of what has yet to be done will be addressed by this particular paper. As you can see, this presents a research question in a very practical way without actually posing any direct questions at all.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: My viva is coming up, and one of my supervisors is planning to attend. I know that he won't be able to say anything during the viva itself, but I'm a little worried what he might say afterward while the examiners are discussing my fate. He's a good supervisor, and thinks very highly of my work, but he does have a tendency to agree with whomever he's speaking to at the moment. For example, if the examiners were discussing a small potential change to my thesis, I'm afraid his enthusiasm might get the better of him, and he might "volunteer" me to make a bigger change than the examiners expected or even suggest additional experiments which are beyond the scope of my PhD.

Does that scenario seem plausible, or am I worried over nothing? If there is reason to be concerned, I might ask my supervisor not to come, explaining that his presence might "make me more nervous" to avoid hurting his feelings.

If it helps, I'm in a small country which has an academic system very similar to the U.K. I have read [Benefits to supervisor presence at viva in the UK?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/68506), but my question is a little different since I have a specific concern, and the supervisor in question has already invited himself.<issue_comment>username_1: You have no control over whether your supervisor proposes wide-reaching corrections to your thesis. Even if he does, you might not know about it. After the viva, maybe you'll be given really wild corrections to make, and maybe they were proposed by one of the examiners. You have no way of knowing.

So, you are powerless, and you are ignorant. You cannot affect the outcome, and you will not even know what the outcome is. Rather than losing heart, take this opportunity to embrace it. This is something wholly outside of your control, and you are therefore free to ignore it. Breathe. Take a walk. Re-read your thesis. Enjoy dinner.

You probably will still be wondering, though. "But what if...?" "How can I know...?" "Maybe he'll..." Rest assured that your examiners are sensible people, experts in their field, and that they will know what is over-promising or outside the scope of your thesis. Your supervisor may suggest something in earnest enthusiasm, and the examiners may reject it, or settle for a more modest correction request. Your supervisor may decide to channel his enthusiasm into post-PhD follow-up projects with you.

**tl;dr:** Don't worry, be happy.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In a UK viva, you are normally asked to leave the room when your examiners are deliberating your result. At this point your supervisor would also normally leave the room with you. As you said, they shouldn't say anything during the viva, and this should include any deliberation between your examiners. To be honest though, a supervisor does *not* want their student to fail, or have an unmanageable number of corrections, because that looks really bad on the supervisor as well. It's in their best interest for you to pass as easily as possible.

In the UK your supervisor is also never present without your permission. If your institution has these rules, then you can just ask them not to come. Just say that you feel it would add extra pressure that you could do without. It can be useful to have your supervisor there when you're read your corrections, as then they also know what you're asked to correct. In my viva I kind of got to argue potential changes during the viva, whilst we picked through my thesis. Since at this stage your supervisor definitely can't talk, you're in charge of your side of the negotiation.

Don't worry too much about changes. Your thesis only ever needs to be good enough to pass. It doesn't have to be brilliant, or better than anyone else's, it just has to demonstrate a significant contribution. You therefore shoudln't be asked to do more work for the sake of doing more. You should only have to change things if without them, your contribution isn't explained or supported well enough.

Remember that if your supervisor has supported your decision to submit your thesis, then there is little chance you'll fail. Try and enjoy yourself, you're unlikely ever to get to talk to two experienced researchers exclusively about your own work for such a long time ever again. Relish it!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Just to add to the other good answers. You can always argue that a change is not needed or outside of the scope of your thesis. Your examiners will also know what they are doing so trust them as well, if they don't feel something is needed they won't push for it. The other thing is they will have a grade in mind when discussing it. If one examiner has minor corrections in mind they will push against suggestions that major changes are needed as this drastically changes the outcome. Finally they would also be less than ok with your supervisor interjecting as he should not be part of the decision making process, in fact he should be leaving when you are.

Finally while there may be nothing to worry about your own mentality is the most important thing. I know that nerves are not the most logical. If despite all reassurances you feel more comfortable with your supervisor out of the room then state this. You need to be comfortable in there, you don't need to lay out your reasons logically even to yourself. Just take the decision that makes you comfortable.

I feel there won't be an issue but you have to consider how you feel.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: I finished my masters thesis (computer science) a year ago and had only a slight chance to become a graduate student (I declined the offer because it was too risky for me).

Now I am working as a software engineer for almost a year. I still want to do a PhD and I am convinced I can do it one day. I even told my company that I want to do a PhD and if there exists a chance to do it in cooperation with the company, I will do it.

Nevertheless, I find myself reading books about the life of a PhD student, how to write a dissertation and so on...but I feel like I am getting nowhere closer to my goal. I would like to publish something that I can show to research institutes of interest (something to add to my CV that is research related).

Right now I am interested in Software Architecture, I also read other publications even if they are not related to my current job as a software engineer. I feel like I could squeeze some of my knowledge into some kind of publication, I just don't know how to do it.

Could you give me any hints or even books that focus on publication for the field of computer science?

All the books I read so far are either medicine research related or very global...<issue_comment>username_1: To be honest, I think it would be extremely difficult to publish independently, in a forum that would matter. That is, there are [predatory publications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_of_Advanced_Computer_Technology) that will take just about anything, including a publication consisting solely of the repeated sentence **Get me off Your F--king Mailing List** ... but if you want to publish real work, there are a lot of hurdles.

I'm not going to google for you to point at how-to's that must say things like how you need to state a thesis, provide background, do some evaluation, compare to prior art, and so on. I don't think the issue is the mechanics of writing a paper, though the English in your original post indicate that will be a problem if you publish in English. (I sympathize with those for whom it is not their first language, but it doesn't make it easier to publish.)

The issue is really, as a junior software engineer, is it really true that you can **could squeeze some of [your] knowledge into some kind of publication**?

It's surely the case that some people have published with minimal background and sometimes even made monumental contributions. But the bar goes up with time. There's a *lot* of cumulative work. If you really think you can add to that, you probably should start with the "prior art" part I mentioned before. Read a bunch of papers, for instance in a conference pertaining to your area of interest, and see if there is something there where you think you can add on to it.

But I think a better approach is to do accomplished work as a software engineer, then apply to a PhD program, and have the professors teach you what is involved in publishing.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I'll offer a different answer to the above, as I'm in a very similar position to you.

I don't think publishing 'independently' it is necessarily as hard as people assume, if you have some university education behind you. I put independently in quotation marks, because I think your best avenue would be to reach out to somebody at the university where you completed your master's, eg getting into contact with your thesis supervisor, and see if your thesis is worth condensing into something of publishable quality.

An alternative would be to approach other professors at the university, if you have other connections from your masters. This is what I did, although I had already done the research myself, and mostly needed the guidance on how to best write up the paper. It's also really helpful when writing papers to have someone much smarter than you to bounce your ideas off. They will also know the field you're wanting to publish in, and can help you select a suitable conference, etc.

If you get in touch with any members of staff, they will probably expect you to have a specific research problem in mind. As someone who isn't a PhD student, you and the person you choose to work with won't have the implicit professional relationship, and so it may seem a little bizarre if you contact them with a view to publish just *something*, rather than approaching them to talk specifically about a research interest.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Regardless of whether or not you decide to pursue a Ph.D, publishing is in principle not something you set out to do in advance, this is always going to be the result of research work that has results that the scientific community is likely going to be interested in. This means that you need to do a lot of literature research first to understand what the problems the researchers are dealing with today are. If you then do your own research and come up with results that you think the professionals would want to read about, then you can consider writing up an article.

So, while there are always going to be exceptions, in principle a publication by you on some topic means that you've mastered that topic to such a degree that you should be considered to be a top expert (at least when one narrows things down to what's covered in your article). This is the very reason why a publication can help increase your chances to get an academic job.

You should not reverse the logic here and try to get to a publication for the sake if it. There are junk journals where you can get away with publishing mediocre work that editors of normal journals would have rejected. But publishing in such journals won't help you much, most researchers will get a visceral reaction when they see the title of such a journal on your list of publications.

Publishing as an independent researcher is possible, I've published quite few articles outside of my professional research area. But it helps to have had research experience in one field to be able to do this. I'm quite sure that I could not have written up a proper research article had I not had studied at research level at university.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: French higher education system is quite singular: besides traditional universities (following Bologna Process scheme with Bachelor (3 years), Master (2 years) and PhD (3 years)), there are so-called [*grandes écoles*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandes_%C3%A9coles) – mostly in the business and engineering fields. To enter a *grande école*, one must traditionally attend [*classes préparatoires*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_pr%C3%A9paratoire_aux_grandes_%C3%A9coles).

One distinctive feature of these *classes prépa* is the significance of frequent *colles* (1 every two weeks per student and discipline – sometimes also written *khôlles*), which generally consist of 1 hour oral examination, where a couple of undergrads solve a problem in front of an examiner – the so-colled *colleur*.

*Colleurs* are mostly professors teaching in *classe prépa*. However they can also be university assistant professors, high-school teachers, PhD-candidates, or post-doc lecturing on their part time.

**Question:** What is the most appropriate translation of "*colleur*" into English?

("TA" or "tutor" both seem too broad in my opinion.)<issue_comment>username_1: I would suggest using the official title and then adding a brief sentence describing the job duties. This way you provide ask the information in an accurate and accessible way. Having to look up a job title is not a big deal when evaluating foreigners.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In English universities, the equivalent exam is usually called a "viva", short for ["viva voce"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_exam). We do not have a specific word for a person who assesses oral exams though, I'm afraid, so "viva examiner" is probably the best you're going to get.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I just applied for and got shortlisted for a Skype interview. In a mid size University and Department in Germany (in Physics), how many people are generally shortlisted for postdoctoral positions?<issue_comment>username_1: I cannot tell for this particular case, nor for that matter for a typical German Physics Department. But in my experience (also in Physics), it is a **few**, i.e. **4 ± 2**, for a single position (depends also on the number of good applications, could be as few as 0 but unlikely more than 8).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think there is a 'generally' for this scenario. In some cases, the number is actually 0 - i.e. a group or a researcher wants to hire a post-doc and nobody relevant presents themselves.
Upvotes: 2