For two years I’ve been working on drafts of a paper. I’m happy to keep incorporating new sources and improving the paper, because the topic is fascinating, and I’m confident that my work is worth publishing. However, when I print the current draft out to look over after making edits, I can barely read a paragraph before my eyes glaze over and I lose interest. Earlier in the project, when my paper was worse but the subject was fresher in my mind, I was able to calmly read my own writing. Now I find it very difficult.

I wouldn’t expect anyone else to read something that I can’t, which makes me reluctant to seek feedback — I don’t want to waste people’s time. Still, I’m pretty sure the writing itself isn’t a total catastrophe, and that I am just “sick” of working on this paper. That’s hardly a useful diagnosis. What should I do?

I have read various posts on SO related to my question, so the parts i got answer i am not putting here.

My advisor asks me to write a paper and when i send the draft its with him unless the last week of deadline for journal. Then he call me for meeting and i can clearly see the nice and crispy pages just printed without a single dot, and also he will roughly turn pages and then tell me do this and that. And these changes takes lot of time. Then he will again do the same and propose such changes that needs whole revision and most of the time at end i need to revert the changes. If to be honest, i want to tell him that please at least for one time read the whole paper propose changes and let me do it then, it will save our months of time instead of keeping it with you for more then a month without reading. Same thing happened when i was writing my first annual report which has to be submitted before 9th month of starting phd, i submitted in my 7th month and ended up passing first year in 16th month after starting date.

I cant change advisor due to my study leave rules and my tenure of leave as well as the scholarship he gave i cant even talk to him as he is very reserved, not open for discussions or arguments.

Should i just do as it is or do i need to ask someone from management for help?

GPA 3.8, Dean’s List (top 10% of college)

Can expect strong LORs from recommenders familiar with the high degree of quality of my work.

GRE: Q161 V154

Interned as software engineer in industry for last 2 summers.

I am concerned that my GRE scores will hurt my application (and it may be too late to retake the exam). What can I do to strengthen my application? Also, which schools should I be applying to?

I belong to an environment where gaining a valuable/ meaningful Letter of Recommendation (LoR) is difficult. There exist various reasons, from they themselves not being researchers to fake letters; but that is not the region of interest for this question.

I have been working in the industry for couple of years, where I had the opportunity to work with a Masters student. I mentored her, worked on a project, and we have proposed a new algorithm. That is pending a review, but we have put a pre-print on arXiv. A notable thing is, there was no other project guide. I, and my student, we both believe and agree to the fact that I led the project and saw it to the succession, be it the underlying mathematics or drafting a paper.

I am applying to US universities for MS degree in Computer Science. As mentioned above, running out of quality recommendations.

So the question is: will it be considered a quality letter if my student writes it? The thought of doing so occurred to me while reading that, in the application, review committee looks out for the direct proofs that persons is capable of conducting a quality research. I felt that this project is my biggest evident proof.

I already agree that from person to person, the scenario would differ. But objectively, are there solid reasons? Have you witnessed such a case in the past? If yes, did it have a positive impact?

Recently, in Reviews of Modern Physics, I have read an erratum which represents an apology for a copied verbatim text. The text is:

“Large parts of Sec. VI.A, “Inverse magneto-optical excitation of magnetization dynamics: Theory,” consist of text
and equations that are verbatim quotes, or very nearly so, of material in the paper by Gridnev (2008). Although this theory
was developed in close collaboration with Dr. Gridnev and jointly published in Kalashnikova et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99,
167205 (2007) and Kalashnikova et al., Phys. Rev. B 78, 104301 (2008), we adopted the more compact and rigorous description
given in Gridnev (2008) for this review. We regret that we did not identify these parts of our review as direct quotes, and we
apologize to V. N. Gridnev and the readers of Reviews of Modern Physics for this oversight.” from here.

Although there is a copied text, from what I see, there is not a retraction. The question is: why this paper was not retracted?

If one wanted to cite an article where the listed author is a pseudonym and it is well-known that the name is a pseudonym then which name ought one use?

Normally I would just use the name listed on the paper, however there is the following situation that made me wonder: there is a paper by one Maurizio Boyarsky which is a pseudonym of one Bernard Dwork. It is somewhat ‘well-known’ that this is a pseudonym as it is listed in the Wikipedia article and in the MathSciNet review of the paper. However, in a certain textbook there is the line

On the other hand, Dwork in [Bo]…

and the reference at the end of the book corresponding to [Bo] is the paper of Boyarsky.

So it made me wonder, should I follow the example in the textbook or not?

EDIT: to clarify, I am not debating the entry in the bibliography, I am debating whether one should write “On the other hand, Dwork in [Bo]” or “On the other hand, Boyarsky in [Bo]”.

I am an undergraduate student in computer science, and I have been working as an undergraduate researcher in theoretical computer science for 7 months. There was this problem that my supervisor has mentioned, and I have worked on it for a while. But I have only managed to solve a sub-case of the problem, which didn’t interest my supervisor at that time. However, he wanted me to write a manuscript about it anyway. I put a lot of effort to write it, but he didn’t bothered to read it. And we have moved on to other things.

A week ago, my supervisor called me, and he said that he found an interpretation of the sub-case of I’ve solved, that economists are interested of. And, he said that we can publish it in a journal. So, I was really hyped. We met next day, to review my proof. But when I arrived, I’ve learned that a friend of my supervisor found an implicit assumption at the beginning of my proof which was clearly wrong.

As you can imagine, I was devastated. I’ve tried to find a workaround, and fix my solution, but I’ve just found another thing that I’ve overlooked. So I’ve lost my enthusiasm and self-confidence.

However, my supervisor claims he found completely different idea to solve the problem. He explained it to me, however it has some parts to be completed. So he wants me to write a manuscript about it and fill the gaps. However, I cannot find any motivation to do so. I am overwhelmed by the feelings of failure and anger.

I know that I should be working on my supervisor’s idea, but I’m so distracted with the mistake I’ve made. How can I overcome my mistake, and start to work again?