I’m a big believer in FOSS (Free Open Source Software), and a physics graduate student. I believe a lot of current researchers are not aware of free solutions to problems that are usually encountered in a lab, and since money is often tight in academia I think it’s important.

I also feel like my thesis is the only bit of work I’ll do in academia that’s truly mine; there’s no journal with strict criteria on what I can include.

So do you think it’s appropriate to include a section at the end of my thesis, essentially completely separate from the rest of it, containing my views about the state of software in science and solutions to problems? I’m worried that it might seem a bit preachy, but I think that’s a problem that can be solved with tone/phrasing.

I am currently doing a PhD in university X, but I am planning to quit, since I am looking for something more involved in my research interest.

Should I mention it in my first email to a potential phd advisor in university Y?

or is it sufficient to say that I am a research assistant at university X?
and what about in the CV?

I am an academic in computer science in Europe, just completed my Ph.D. and applied for tenure-track positions in Europe. I received a very early offer in the UK more than a month ago and the negotiation stretched until now. Given the overal small startup packages in the UK, I managed to negotiate for a decent startup budget. However, as the department has no presence nor material for the research I am doing, the deal is more average/minimal. Apart from the details in the offer, the thing that is holding me back is that my partner also has a good career here but in the UK, she would have a very hard time and probably have to go back to university to make her degree compatible. We discussed all of this and I would take the offer if all other applications do not work out. Now the university really wants me to make a decision this week.

I have a tenure-track application running at my home university where I did my studies, grew up, and I am still living. The place is quite decent and despite the down-sides of staying at the same place, I would be very happy with the position as I was able to do good work here in the past, and my partner would be able to continue her career as well. I have a good chance of receiving an offer here but the interview and results will be out in 3-4 weeks. I contacted the university but they cannot speed-up the process. The other thing is that the position at the university here is quite exceptional in that a similar position will not be available anytime soon. As there not many/no universities that have a presence in my field nearby, this is the one opportunity for my partner and I to live in our hometown.

So I need to make a decision this week on an offer in the UK which I would totally take if the outcome on the other application would be negative. The application at my home university, which would be my preferred choice, will still take 3 weeks. If I say NO to the offer in the UK, I could end up with no position. The safest thing would be to say YES this week. But potentially canceling the offer in 3 weeks, when the results at my home university are out, is probably not very ethical?

Just for completeness, I have another tenure-track application at a university nearby, this could be a backup, but is very uncertain as it is not specifically focusing on my area of research.

I would welcome any advise or hear about similar experiences.

We’re working on building a tool to evaluate the efficacy of NSF proposals, broken down by topic. We extracted the topics per grant using this dataset.

One of the criteria for evaluating the impact of a grant could be the aggregating and analyzing publication-level citation-metrics, perhaps using this list of databases.

However, there doesn’t seem to be a way to filter papers that were wholly or partly funded by a particular grant. Do you have any suggestions about how this data could be retrieved, or how grant-giving bodies typically analyze this themselves?

I am writing an article for an audience that mostly consists of computer scientists. A specific part of the subject is motivated by Kirchhoff’s laws. I intend to mention this fact and reference the rules. But that is easier said then done. Apparently, Kirchhoff predates referencing.

How do you reference a source that is so old, it has no bibtex entry, but is also probably not well-known throughout the readership?

edit: I want to clarify, that I can also imagine to not reference it at all, but I find it difficult to draw a line here. Can I assume that every reader is familiar with a term? For instance, can I omit a citation to Damas/Hindley/Milner when introducing ML to modeling engineers? How about Newton’s method for computer scientists?

I notice there have been some similar questions, like Will turn down a graduate (Master's) program have effect on my application for the same program?.
But my situation is a little bit different.

I once turned down a Master in statistics admission at University A and accept another Master in applied mathematics at University B.
At that time, I think the Master program at University A focus more on the applied statistics but I want to learn more math and theoretical statistics to prepare for applying for statistics PhD program.
So I accept the applied math master program at University B.

I plan to apply for statistics PhD program at University A this fall.
Will I be put into a less favorable place compared to other applicants because of this?

My friend has conducted a small pilot survey as part of research proposal and used anonymized results to present his case. Now adviser insists that my friend discloses names and emails of all the participants. Would it be ethical do disclose this information? Since it was a pilot study, my friend didn’t bother with consent forms, and I feel like it would be incorrect to disclose this information. I understand that adviser wants to be sure that the study was real. Is there any way my friend can prove that study was real, without disclosing private information of participants?

Recently, I have received the following comment.

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript.

Furthermore, I have received the original manuscript (in .pdf) as an attachment. The attached manuscript is highlighted with some red color underlined pop-ups messages.

I am having a doubt regarding the space. What is the space the editor is talking about? Is it the space specified in the original manuscript, or do I need to incorporate the same using a new response sheet.

I was recently reading some suggestions on how to effectively write a “response to reviewer comments” document. One suggestion was to consider categorising reviewer comments by theme.

Categorize the reviewers’ comments: If there are too many comments, it would help if you separate the comments into categories. For
example, all the comments related to methodology could be grouped
together, all related to language could be under one category, etc. If
you decide to do that, make sure you add a sentence such as “I have
separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several
categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my
responses.” SOURCE

Previously my workflow has been to do this internally but to still organise the response document by reviewer order and then by the order implied by their response. So, I would number and give a title to each reviewer point. I would then organise these into categories in a separate document (just for me) and work out the best way to sequentially work through them. If two reviewers made the same point, in the response to the second reviewer, I would just refer back to the relevant review earlier.

So my question:

Is it advisable to re-organise reviewer points thematically in the response document? Or is it better to retain the order implied by the editor’s letter?

Some initial thoughts:

  • Organising by theme will mean that points made by different reviewers and the editor are interspersed. Thus, it will be harder for the editor or reviewer to identify their specific points. A naming convention might reduce this issue a little bit (e.g., I often name reviewer points R1.1, R1.2, etc. for Reviewer 1 Point 1, Reviewer 1 Point 2), but not completely.
  • Response documents vary in complexity. I imagine when there are a lot (e.g., 50+) separate points to address that thematic organisation might be more relevant. Similarly, when there are more reviewers, there may be more overlap in the points that are raised and therefore greater benefit in organising thematically.
  • Some reviewer points are distinct enough that they need to be addressed separately, but may not be as clear when not seen consecutively.