I am working on a project involving log in and log out, which has worked well, however if I submit data from any form after login, refreshing to the home page logs me out, I have used session_start() on every page. What could be the problem?
I am reviewing a paper for a journal. However, the author list in the submitted pdf file of the paper is different from the author list in the submission website. One of the authors is not appearing in the online submission website. Though, it is possible that some of the conflicts have been ignored (I am not in conflict with any of the authors). Should I recommend the paper to be rejected or just inform the editor about this (or any other solutions)?
With so many American universities upgrading their academic buildings with state-of-the-art classrooms that have advanced technology, eg, capability to record lectures and post them on websites shortly after, has any of these universities considered utilizing technology to catch in-class cheating on exams?
Implementing a procedure where the classroom exams are videotaped and audiotaped could reduce cheating dramatically, in turn reducing any huge headache cases that department chairs / university deans would have to deal with.
If appropriate notice is given beforehand, I don’t see that such procedures violate any privacy laws of students.
Or is utilizing technology to catch cheating a really impractical idea?
Personally, I’d say it’s not impractical – ETS, the organization that administers the GRE exams, already videotape and audiotape their exams, at least in American test centers.
So, if it’s not impractical, have universities begun to take such steps to reduce cheating? Or is there a reason that I am oblivious to for the universities to not want to utilize technology to catch cheating?
There’s a big melodrama happening around the issue of citation in articles. Some journal accepts one citation system whereas the other journal insists on some other system. The authors, unfortunately, have had to concentrate more upon how to cite rather than how to make their valid points in representing their research.
I would like to study for a PhD and hopefully become a researcher. There is nothing I can think of that I would like to do with my life more. However, my social and communication abilities are bad. They are bad beyond the point where it could be dismissed as me being a ‘quirky professor’. People assume that if you want to go into academia, you want to teach. However, I don’t think I could do it. I have Asperger syndrome, so there’s a limit to how much I can improve my social skills. No matter how much I try to be ‘normal’, it doesn’t work and it’s massively draining, to the extent that I find myself struggling to do basic tasks because I get burnt out. There are staff at my university who seem to like me, so it’s not as though it’s impossible for me to form positive relationships with people in academia, but that’s very different to being able to teach classes. Is there any point in me trying to pursue an academic career? Can I focus on research and do minimal or no teaching? I know that there are autistic people in academia, and that I’m pretty ‘high-functioning’ for an autistic person (i.e. I have it easier than a lot of autistic people, even though I do struggle a lot), but I don’t want to set myself up to fail.
I am writing a report on Fusion energy as an assignment. It contributes to a sperate qualification in Physics which is simply a Pass/Fail. Further studies will often not accept students who do not pass this section.
In this report, I have briefly looked into the current state of electricity generation, including the emissions from coal power plants, and the mining of coal. I found some excellent sources, but also one that had been deleted from the state.gov website. It was available here. It is still available on archive.org here.
Archive.org shows it was removed sometime between 12:45 and 19:54 on the 20th of January 2017. This does not seem to be a coincidence as many news sites reported on Trump ordering the EPA to remove climate change data.
Personal politics aside, I feel attempting to remove/removing any data from the internet is disgraceful, and I want to express that in my report. Currently, at the end of my bibliography I have this text:
Note on Citation 30: UNITED STATES CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2014. The Available URL provided is from archive.org’s WaybackMachine, a project which aims to archive public facing sites for the future, protecting them from removal. On the 20th of January 2017, this report was removed from the state.gov website. This appears to have been under the instruction of President Trump, as news sites reported data on the EPA website was removed. The provided archive.org link is the most recent version, from 23 December 2016.
Is this appropriate in the bibliography, or should I simply leave it at the first 2 sentences?
I am physicist, I do research in theoretical biophysics, and I just got a permanent position. I am still collaborating with my former postdoc advisor, with whom I already published, and we are about to submit a new paper.
When I was a postdoc, the best thing for my CV was to be first author. It is not entirely clear to me what would be the best thing now for my CV. Should I aim at being last author, corresponding author, or still first author?
I have asked this question to people working in different scientific areas, and got very different answers.
Thank you for your help!
I have been doing my PhD for 3 years, and my supervisor has been a real pain. This has made my life like a hell. His behavious includes yelling, bullying, and demeaning me. He has no regards for me and he does not keep the privacy about my work. Since, other people in our group are all from his country, I am the only one with whom he speaks/yells in English, so almost everybody at school is aware of the situation. His bad manners are not limited to this, it is much worse, but I don’t want to write about him, rather I want to write about my problem.
I wanted to change my supervisor in earlier stages of my PhD, but the school suggested only one option whose research area was quite different from mine (We work on similar problems but completely different approaches). Also, because my stipend was sponsored by his grant, I had to apply for another scholarship. In the end, I decided to keep working with the same person (ignoring this bad behaviour) and avoid a new unknown situation.
Later in my PhD, I came to know other supervisors at school and started working with them. Though, I kept working with other professors, and I kept my main supervisor notified about what I am doing. He was also happy, because he could see that I am much more productive. However, his behaviour remained the same. Every time that I talk to him, he kills my motivation and self-confidence.
Now that I have finished 3 years, the scholarship has ran out and the supervisor failed to provide me with any financial support. Unlike him, other professors has been really supportive and provided me with some financial support. I still have a thesis to write and I really cannot tolerate his behaviour. I was wondering if changing my supervisor at this stage is a wise decision. What are the drawbacks of this decision?
For instance, there’s currently a great deal of attention towards the theory of “spin glasses” in probability theory. But how does a research direction gain its importance so quickly? Does it simply start with one researcher who declares that this research direction should be given a lot of attention?
I’ve noticed the following about some facts in probability and statistics (it is probably true more generally). Some results (formulas, for instance) may be moderately straightforward to derive and check, but they are not documented anywhere (at least anywhere easy to find). So, everyone working on that problem needs to perform (and double-check) all those calculations for themselves when doing their work.
For example, the existence and formulae for the moments of some probability distribution may not be very easy to search for but may take about an hour or two derive and check.
I feel that the research in the community would proceed quicker if these calculations were documented somewhere. What is the standard way of addressing this situation?
- Just do the calculation yourself, and don’t worry about the rest of the community
- Write a blog post
- Write it up on Wikipedia
- Write a so-called “note” on something like arXiv
I should note that I am pretty new to the game of research.
Thanks a lot,