I am a PhD student in computer science. Together with my advisor we are collaborating with some external centers, specialized in biology research;

the idea is that I build an algorithm, we use this algorithm on their data and then we publish the results.

Now, we have found some pretty interesting results on a set of their data and we are planning to write a paper; however the target of the paper will be mainly a biology review, not a cs conference.

Even if we are going to publish the results on a prestigious review, I would like also to write a paper more focused on the algorithm, maybe for a conference of applied computer science, using the same data; consider that a paper with only the algorithm and the relative details has already be submitted.

Does it make sense? Will a publication on a top review for a different field be considered in any way when I will apply for future post doc positions, or is it better to write a second paper, more focused on my field?

Alice and Bob have co-authored a paper together. The contribution (data collection, analysis, writing) was 100% Alice and 0% Bob, except that the original idea was initiated during a conversation between Alice and Bob. Bob acknowledged several times in private that he did not contribute to the project, but he claimed co-authorship for the idea and Alice did not object to that. Alice spent almost an entire year working on the project. Bob spent less than a couple of hours in total. A manuscript with both names has already been circulated, submitted and rejected from one journal.

Bob is now trying to block the publication of the paper due to a personal conflict with Alice. In the meantime, Bob became envious of Alice’s early successes and decided to do everything to slow down her career, even at the expense of his own publication record. Bob is already tenured and has no pressure to publish. Alice, by contrast, needs more publications for her forthcoming tenure review. Of course, Bob never explicitly refused to submit the paper. But instead of sending it to a prestigious outlet (where the paper would have a good shot) he insists that they send the manuscript to a non peer-reviewed and unknown journal, which would not help Alice’s tenure case. Of course he makes no effort in trying to find an agreement, as he would be happy not to submit the paper at all. Clearly, his decisions are driven by spite and malevolence only and he takes great care into not writing anything incriminating for him.

Is there anything that Alice can do in that situation? Does she have to resign herself to never publishing the paper? What are the risks for her if she removes Bob’s name without his agreement and submits the manuscript on her own?

PS: as a response to Captain Emacs’ comment, Bob’s only contribution was to say “why don’t we study the causal effect of X on Y?” in an informal conversation. Alice did absolutely all the rest (literature review, design of the protocol, data collection, analysis, conference presentations, etc.). But there is no evidence of this, other than the fact that Bob would be unable to answer any question that goes into the detail of the paper.

I have a good job and salary now. And I want to quit my job to take a Ph.D. degree, which means my income will be cut in half. Should I mention that in my personal statement to prove my dedication to academia? Would that be like I am looking down the academia as I quantify the benefits academia brings me with the money?

I am applying from Europe to the U.S. for tenure-track positions. One of the advice that I heard from my colleagues is that once one offer is received, one should contact the other universities that one has a preference for, and tell them about the offer. However, I do not understand how this act of telling another university about an offer could actually put any pressure. What does one say in such a communication? And what is one expecting from it? (For example, if all the interviews are already scheduled, one can hardly expect the university to “hurry along” and pick a candidate…) I am interested in hearing the answer for American institutions, but as long as the region is specified, I should like to hear the European versions as well.

I wonder how it is percieved if a student does not attend the course in which attendance is not taken.

I am a PhD student and I skipped most of the classes of two courses. Now, both of the instructors are mad at me. I got an F because in oral exam, I could not explain only one point in a chapter, after explaining the rest correctly, by the professor’s judgement.
And, other one ignores me when I try to greet him, opposed to 3-4 weeks ago. Now that I have very strictly judged and not very fairly graded by the first one (F means zero points), I am now afraid the second one would grade the oral exam biased, based on his behavior.

Is it really natural and legit for them to behave so? What can I do to turn it around and convince people that my intention was not to offend them? They probably think I am a big head who just moved into country and thinks he knows better than all. Which is totally wrong. It is a very very bad habit of me not to attend lectures which I have studied and/or those are conceptual.

To clear out some points in the comments, let me explain my train of thought:

1) I think it is pretty vengeful to deliberately refuse a greetings from a colleague whose office is at the same floor. Even though if we only consider teacher-student relationship, what would you think of a student who you greeted by looking directly into the eyes, if he/she turns his/her head and moves on with an extremely dull expression? Isn’t this vengefulness?

2) As an example, suppose that a professor is speaking English with a really bad accent and nearly without grammar. Students would expect him to speak clearly, but it is ultimately faculty committee that they should be angry with since their hiring criteria are not very good. Being angry with the instructor himself is pointless. Similarly, if university policy requires not to take attendance and a professor wants students to attend, it is a university policy matter. I don’t say everyone should like everyone, but I think it is not proper to get angry with someone because that someone uses their free will.

3) Is attending the classes a matter of respect? I think not. At the end of the day, professors are paid to be in that very room to teach that specific subject, and students, according to university rules and policy, did not make a promise to attend these classes. The professors are not doing favor to the students. On one side, there is a duty, on the other side there is free will. If I attend the class and do not listen, I think this is worse.

If a master’s degree candidate needs to select a thesis topic, but their advisor is unwilling to offer suggestions on the matter, how should one go about selecting a thesis?

  • How might one select an area to study?
  • How can one evaluate if if is a suitable topic?
  • Does the thesis need to focus on an area which is relatively unexplored by prior research?