I have seen many long papers published in magazines, such as IEEE signal processing magazine, and usually they are about a detailed overview of many papers combined together of the same author.
So I am wondering if a magazine paper is as I have described or it has to satisfy other criteria such as a novelty is required compared to the previous work.

I am also wondering, can a PhD student be a first author in a manuscript submitted to a magazine or the first author has to be famous in the field in order to be trusted by the reviewers.

Last question is if a PhD student graduates with one magazine paper will that help to get a faculty position or it is counted as a journal paper.

Does Trump’s election as the president of the US mean most of the Americans view immigrants as enemies, and themselves superior to people of all other races?

Does this also mean the racial abuse and bias already existing will be more prevalent? And the hatred and violence towards non-Americans will only continue to surge?

So will it still be a wise idea to try and get admitted into an American university?

I am doing my PhD on a small field in engineering where even if the review process is double blinded you would know who is going to review your paper.

This incident that I am going to mention is very odd and this is the first time that happened to me since I switched my research area. I am currently struggling to get my work accepted in a conference knowing that I have already 10 papers published among them 2 journals and most of them I wrote them when I was doing my master (I am mentioning this to let you know that I have already a little experience with the review process)

There are two groups in our field who are doing the same work that we are doing but they are applying an existing approach naively whereas we came up with a big novelty.

So they rejected our paper twice: once for conference submission and another time when we submitted an extension of the same work to transactions since it got rejected for the conference so we thought that we could argue with the reviewers in a journal but it didn’t even go through the pre-screening process and these reviewers gave same arguments.

“First reviewer reason from the first group: Your method is very effective and definitely you have tested your model with the training data

“The other reviewer reason from the second group is pretty much the same: Your model is over-fitting or you are using the training data to test your model

However we explicitly stated in our manuscript that we use a testing data that was collected separately and was not used for training the model.

On top of that they mentioned also things that prove they did not even bother to read the manuscript for instance one of them said that we should run an experiment that we have already included it in the paper with a big figure.

My advisor has emailed the Editor-in-Chief of the journal but as we have expected he didn’t even read his email and he replied with one sentence mentioning that we can consider re-submitting the manuscript.

So I am wondering are there other means and ways to win such a battle when the scientific field which is supposed to be decent and fair turns to be unfair.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention that as opposed to the review policy which clearly states that reviewers are supposed to not know each others or read other reviewer’s comments, one of them discussed the comments of another reviewer and he clearly referred to them in his comments.

Would it be possible to publish in a decent journal (not ArXiv) without conducting experiments? I was thinking of conducting some correlational research based on existing data (Ex. statistics collected by the government available to the public).

What are my chances of publishing as an undergrad based on existing data? Will journals accept this kind of publication? I am open to suggestions on how to go about doing this and whether it is a worthwhile undertaking?

I have an ex who has posted nude photos of me online in the past, linked to my online social media, and posted my full name and where I live. I am concerned he may do so again once he finds out I’m now in a PhD program (he’s very jealous of any success I have), and may link to my school bio page, or worse.

Revenge porn is illegal in my state, and the case against him is currently pending. I have also gotten the photos taken down with a DMCA letter. At this point, I am concerned with how a future attempt could affect my career. I can handle the embarrassment now that I’ve been through it once, so if that’s the biggest concern, I can deal. I just don’t want to lose a career over it, given how small academia really is and how a reputation might follow one around.

My question is, if I don’t change my name (I’ve considered this, assuming I can keep him from finding out) and my photos are circulated and discovered by faculty or students, how likely am I to be thrown out of my PhD program or later lose a job as an untenured prof? Is a name change worth it?

(If it makes any difference, they are essentially just topless portraits; I’m not engaged in any sexual activity or anything weird, and were taken 10 years ago when I was very young and foolish.)

I am a grad student TA and I proctor exams. I want to know, what is the best way to proctor? As in, paths to take while walking, when to stand, when to walk, etc.

Is there any rigorous studies on what catches the most cheating? How does the algorithm change for larger or smaller classrooms?

I am interested in scientific studies, not anecdotes. Are there any rigorous studies for this?

If a protocol is started by a former member of your laboratory, and you publish it both in paper and video *, excluding that member, what is the outcome? Can the person ask for authorship if he was not aware before publication?

If so, how can you prove it or where should you go to claim authorship?


* Jove is a new way of publishing methods and protocols which are either adapted or newly created in your laboratory.

US universities have a tendency to name chairs after people. Just to give a few examples from Harvard: Hollis Professor of Divinity (love that title), Steven and Maureen Klinsky Professorship of Practice for Leadership and Progress (too long to fit on business card), Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr. Professor of Teaching and Learning, etc.

I understand that the people whom the chairs are named after are rich and donated money to the school in the past. What I do not understand is in what aspects it changes the nature of the position. Are these chairs more highly regarded that just being “Professor of Divinity” for example? Are they better paid?