What classic book(s) would a Senior in College recommend to a Senior in High School? These classics should make the Senior’s colleagues and professors consider consider him/her well-read (knowledgeable and informed as a result of extensive reading) in most areas of fiction, biology, medicine, or/and any science. If possible please try to make the books written by experts (in areas of science). In areas of fiction please try to make the books written by classical authors or read and/or recommended by other experts.

In a table showing correlations between several variables, the cells on the diagonal show self-correlation (value of +1 by definition).

Is this best conveyed by an empty cell, a dash, a period, a “1” with nothing after, or a “1.000” with zero count that matches the number of significant digits in the rest of the table? Should it have whatever other modifiers mark the maximum “statistically significantly different from zero?”

A representation with more whitespace in the diagonal cells might help break up the table and better visually guide readers, but there is also some value in consistent cell formatting.

Has there been any work done looking at which is more effective for communication?
Are there widely used style guides in certain fields that answer this question, which might provide a starting point for a field which lacks such a guide?

Related: Should correlation tables be half or full matrices?

With a table showing correlations between several variables, one must choose whether to show values in only ~half the cells (and if so, then choose above or below the diagonal) or all the cells. Since correlation is a symmetric measure, the same amount of information is conveyed with both options.

Filling the whole matrix might make it easier for people to find a particular value, because they can think of either one as primary and look for it in either part of the matrix. However, filling the whole matrix might make the presentation more overwhelming to a reader (“wow, that’s a lot of numbers”) while the half matrix might seem more elegant.

Has there been any work done looking at which is more effective for communication?
Are there widely used style guides in certain fields that answer this question, which might provide a starting point for a field which lacks such a guide?

Related: What goes on the diagonal of a correlation matrix?

Hi I wish to ask for advice regarding the role of an academic supervisor nowadays. Current I am pursuing my Master in a physical science school in one of the university in the South East Asia.

While my academic supervisor is an energetic man and enthusiastic about his research, his research interest is very wide and that each of his students (including me) is working on a title that is only remotely connected to each other. Even he himself is working on a completely different topic than the rest of us. One would expect that we as students would at least get some useful advices from him, but it occurs to us that he is also not clear on background of the research he assigned to us in the first place. While we understand we, as the person who conduct the in depth research, will be more knowledgeable about the field in the end, we notice that he does not understand the basic terminology and theory of the particular field, which I feels is on the level of undergraduates. He would expect us to explain all the basic theory and terminology in our field to him, without bother to study for himself for a thing that is easily reachable even in Wikipedia.

Another thing I observe is his reluctance to search for verification of his current knowledge. He would like to speculate on a thing (which is an established and obvious stuff) based on his own limited knowledge on the said area, completing disregarding our counter arguments based on established facts. Only by exposing the current literature and references (which is simply a google search) did he reluctantly accept his flaws. As a result, this have made us to be skeptical every time he presents an argument.

I would expect my case is uncommon and standalone, until my friends said almost the same things happen to him. Apparently this situation is applicable for other academic supervisors as well. Practically we have to complete our research by ourselves, with the purpose of academic supervisors reduced to providing a working space (I do appreciate that) and stamping their approvals for our paperworks.

An even worse news to hear to that my friend told me that, after his discussion with some experienced international industrial personnels, this seems to be the current trend in area of research in physical science even in overseas, that we are supposed to carry out our research without expecting “useful” suggestions for our work.

Sorry for the long post, as I am confused about the state of the research community right now. Is this to be a norm to be accepted, and that I am expecting too much?

I have submitted my major revision to a top journal. After two days of submission I discovered I had given a wrong reference number while answering a query by the reviewer. Actually in the revised manuscript the reference number was changed. I have contacted the journal board and they told as it is under review it cannot be changed. I am worry. Can my paper be rejected for that, though my original manuscript is ok?

I am a senior freelance software engineer, with about 10 years’ experience. I’ve been working in a university setting for the past year, as a contractor. Usually I work in a commercial environment.

During the year, I’ve done 15-20 days’ work on each of 2 different projects that should have turned into papers, but didn’t due to lack of time from the PI. These projects are more or less complete from a coding point of view: they just haven’t been written up by the PI. I believe the time required to write up should be 2-4 days each.

I’ve now decided to move on from the team (partly due to frustration at projects like these being blocked, which means I don’t have much visible output) and am documenting and handing over my projects.

My question is this. On these projects, is it reasonable to ask for authorship on any paper that is written based on my work after I leave? And – assuming that my estimate of 2-4 days’ work remaining above is correct – is it reasonable to ask for first authorship? (Our field is epidemiology / life sciences, so I believe that authorship order reflects overall contribution.)

In both cases the original idea was the PI’s, and they have provided guidance as I worked, but probably not more than 0.5-1 day in total.

I’m not sure how authorship works after I’ve left. The ICMJE’s author definition says that authors should be involved in drafting and approving the paper, but I won’t be involved in that (well, unless I work for free).

However, it’s very important for my commercial reputation that I can point to visible work done during the year, so I would like to be named as an author, rather than all the work just vanishing under the PI’s name.

One other point: the PI previously put me down as second author on a project where I’d done 99% of the work, and when I queried this, claimed there was no convention on authorship order in our field. Fortunately, I was able to resolve this amicably. But given that experience, I’m now keen to clarify the position about authorship before I leave, and I’d welcome advice on convention and etiquette in this situation.

I am curious about how the submission process works for the cvpr conference.
Actually, it is not clear to me what is the paper abstract deadline. In some conferences when they require a paper abstract submission, they give to the authors information about the criteria of the abstract.
Even if you create an account on the submission website, there is only a link to submit a new paper where you have to upload your manuscript but there is no information about the abstract.

Could anyone explain what is that deadline for the abstract and how to submit it and is there a criteria that authors should follow.

Hi I wish to ask for advice regarding the role of an academic supervisor nowadays. Current I am pursuing my Master in a physical science school in one of the university in the South East Asia.

While my academic supervisor is an energetic man and enthusiastic about his research, his research interest is very wide and that each of his students (including me) is working on a title that is only remotely connected to each other. Even he himself is working on a completely different topic than the rest of us. One would expect that we as students would at least get some useful advices from him, but it occurs to us that he is also not clear on background of the research he assigned to us in the first place. While we understand we, as the person who conduct the in depth research, will be more knowledgeable about the field in the end, we notice that he does not understand the basic terminology and theory of the particular field, which I feels is on the level of undergraduates. He would expect us to explain all the basic theory and terminology in our field to him, without bother to study for himself for a thing that is easily reachable even in Wikipedia.

Another thing I observe is his reluctance to search for verification of his current knowledge. He would like to speculate on a thing (which is an established and obvious stuff) based on his own limited knowledge on the said area, completing disregarding our counter arguments based on established facts. Only by exposing the current literature and references (which is simply a google search) did he reluctantly accept his flaws. As a result, this have made us to be skeptical every time he presents an argument.

I would expect my case is uncommon and standalone, until my friends said almost the same things happen to him. Apparently this situation is applicable for other academic supervisors as well. Practically we have to complete our research by ourselves, with the purpose of academic supervisors reduced to providing a working space (I do appreciate that) and stamping their approvals for our paperworks.

An even worse news to hear to that my friend told me that, after his discussion with some experienced international industrial personnels, this seems to be the current trend in area of research in physical science even in overseas, that we are supposed to carry out our research without expecting “useful” suggestions for our work.

Sorry for the long post, as I am confused about the state of the research community right now. Is this to be a norm to be accepted, and that I am expecting too much?

I need to choose a supervisor for my upcoming term project. I asked one of my professors if he had any ideas for a project for a student with my skill set, and he offered to supervise me as he wasn’t teaching during the project timeline.

Getting to the point, this was way early in the course, and my professor has witnessed me do terribly in the course so far. My interests lie in the subject matter of this course, and I really enjoy this prof and want to do well, but for some reason, the way we are tested really throws me off and I end up overthinking and eventually screwing up the answer.

I’m worried about bringing the topic of my term project up to him again, because I’m worried he will not be impressed with me and refuse to work with a student doing terribly in his course.

Should I bother talking to him about it, or should I disregard the possibility that he could be my supervisor?