I will be starting a master’s degree in applied mathematics in the U.S. this fall and am considering entering a Ph.D. program after this. The master’s program lasts two years; I’d want to begin the Ph.D. program immediately after, in the fall of 2019. In order to do that, I’d need to apply to programs before the end of 2018. Would Ph.D. program admissions committees take into account courses that I’d be planning to take in the spring 2019 semester? Those courses would probably be the second halves of two-course sequences I’d begin taking in the fall 2018 semester. Would they even take into account courses from that semester? I’m planning on writing a thesis; would it be advisable to finish it well before the application deadline at the end of 2018, even though I’d probably be able to write a better thesis after taking more courses?

I am in a situation where my university has made countless mistakes with their new online program. Professors are “no-shows”, do not instruct at all, and advisors have incorrectly registered me in their new program which has now delayed my graduation date and has cost me money. Who do you report a university to that repeatedly makes so many mistakes but has no problem taking your money?

In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith, and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith‘s papers provides the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith‘s work provides origin for the dataset I am using.
This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph:

We use the Smith corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also uses by Smith et al (2016), and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last are to Fred Smith.
Only Smith et al (2016) is Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people.
But the citation style I am using, is a Surname-year style.
So on a casual reading might expect it to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith‘s papers. However, this is incorrect, it is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (who I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

In Bill Smith‘s paper, he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus.
Without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what.

Next month I will be graduating from university in the UK with a Master’s degree in Astrophysics and in October I will be starting my PhD at a different UK university.

I have seen some academic CVs that list the PhD supervisors that person had, alongside the usual information such as the institution and start/ finish date.

I suppose the advantage of including your supervisor’s name on your CV is so that a person reading it can get an idea of the kind of work you’re doing (if you don’t have any publications of your own yet and if they know what your supervisor’s research interests are) and how you fit into their network via the supervisor.

As someone with currently a very short academic CV, is it ok for me to include the names of my Master’s and PhD supervisors? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so?

Note that I know who my future PhD supervisor is.

Some journals require keywords besides the abstract to ‘describe’ the published article, some don’t. See for instance with keywords http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X16301788 and without keywords http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12313/full
I was wondering whether there are guidelines or recommendations how to choose such keywords? For instance, has each journal a list of keywords that you can use or recommend scientific societies/associations a certain standard of ‘how to set up meaningful keywords’? Or do paper authors just make up their own keywords?

A third co-author C of a study in 2016 available on-line (under subscription) want to re-use the data (included in the figures or tables) of this paper with for others co-authors (A, B, D, E). Co-authors C and A are in conflict.These data will be presented and analyzed in a different manner to support its own and new data set in a paper that Co-author C want to submit as unique author. Co-author C will only use the published data (and not the raw data) of the study of 2010. Some raw data are available on-line (under subscription). However, co-author C only collected but not processed an insignificant part these data. After asking the editor permission that co-author C have (he is limited to re-use only 3 tables or figures), do co-author C has the right to publish part of theses data in a new paper as a unique author? these data are considered to represent (30%) of the data set for the new paper. Does the co-author C has the right to re-use the data without permission of the others co-authors (A, B, D, E)? The same may be also applied to the raw data already published as supporting data? IS the co-author C allowed to include in “material and method ” or in “results” section some brief sentences describing how he gets the some of these data and these previous results in its new paper as unique author?
The PI request to include all the co-authors (A, B, D, E) for the new publication of co-author C. Co-author C is not agreed as most of the co-authors (A, B, D, E) did not participate in the elaboration, analyze and writing task of the new paper.

This is a question on the historicity of impact factors for journals. There are hundreds of questions and websites on the impact factor of journals, or journal rankings (and fake rankings and impact factors). I was wondering since when rankings and impact factors are so prominent in academia? Was there a general and widely shared decision by national governments or scientific societies that now, impact factors are the most important aspect for research and publications? Was there a lack of clarity or even missatisfaction with journals, publishers etc. among the academic scholars that they pushed for certain (quantitative) standards? So, since when does the impact factor matter?
Any research study or own experience is very welcome!

I graduated from an australian university last year with a bachelor of mechanical engineering with first class honors and a bachelor of mathematics. If I want to get an honours degree in maths, I need to study for an additional year.

I wish to apply for phd admission in pure maths at Cambridge university. The admission webpage says that the minimum requirement is a first class honours in mathematics or a related area. Am I eligible or I have to study an extra year to get my honours in maths first and then apply to Cambridge? I am interested in analytic number theory if it makes any difference.

Note: I emailed my question to people at Cambridge university but I have not received any replies after a week.