I participated in an poster competition (for undergraduate students) and I won an award with a decent amount of money. My research supervisor was a PhD student at a researcher’s lab. Do people usually share the money of the award with their research supervisor, with the PhD student since he helped me a lot with my poster?

I imagine this is probably a duplicate, but when I search I can only find questions about citing work that is likely to be published.

I’m writing a math paper for publication, and I want to cite a paper available only on the authors website. It is unpublished and it won’t be published anywhere else. How appropriate is this and if the answer is not “completely inappropriate”, how do I cite it?

I was asked by the editor of a mathematical journal to review a submission by an author (unknown to me) which heavily relies upon some of my earlier work. I do not have much experience with writing peer reviews, but I have a good grasp of the topic of the submission.

The new results in the submission build heavily on earlier results in my published work; they are interesting and, in my opinion, worth publishing. However, while reading the mathematical proofs, I couldn’t shake the feeling that they were overly complicated. Indeed, after thinking about it some more, I found that the proofs can be dramatically shortened by using insights that the author may not have had. For instance, one proof would go from roughly three pages to around half a page. For another proof, it seems that it can be reduced to a more standard situation, again drastically shortening it.

My work-in-progress report on the paper now 1) sketches the shortened proof for the first situation, 2) describes the needed insight to reduce the proof in the second situation to the more standard situation. At this point, the suggested changes seem to amount to a significant contribution to the paper since they touch not just minor parts of the paper, but the bulk of it.

At this point, I wonder what the best way to proceed is. Should I just submit the report with these suggestions? Or may it be appropriate in this situation to suggest to the editor that, if the original author is interested, he may contact me so that we can co-author a revised paper together? Or would that be considered unethical?

I do not want to overstep my bounds as a reviewer, but on the other hand I don’t know how common it is for reviewers to contribute significant improvements to a paper anonymously.

In an email to a potential masters supervisor, should I ask to “speak” with the professor / researcher as opposed to instantly asking for her/him to supervise me during graduate school? For instance, should I mention that I find his/her research is interesting and I would like to speak to him/her about it? Or, should I just “cut to the chase” and ask if they could supervise my studies? I have heard conflicting opinions on this topic.

I’m currently teaching a fairly large introductory class,
with about 500 students per semester (spread across multiple sections).

Recently, I received an e-mail from McGraw-Hill Education
offering me a few hundred USD to complete a comparative review
of our current textbook (also McGraw-Hill)
and another McGraw-Hill textbook.

I am not sure what to make of this.
On the one hand,
it definitely sounds nice to me
to spend an hour or two to look through a new textbook,
and write a comparative review,
and be somewhat well compensated for my time.
On the other hand,
it feels like they are trying to “bribe” me
to adopt another textbook,
which may perhaps be more profitable for them
than our current recommended textbook.

Should I be wary about taking the money and accepting this offer?
Is there something unethical about this?
Also, would my university be upset about such an arrangement?
I suspect this would happen at most once a year,
if it indeed happens in the future.

I am writing a review paper together with two colleagues of mine, to be submitted to a prestigious journal in our field (we already got editorial approval of our proposal). We have contributed significantly to the field, and so the review will discuss some of our published papers together with other materials from the literature, authored by other people.

I have some unpublished results that are basically higher quality data compared with some of what is available from the literature. This means that I have deeper insight into some more or less specific aspects within the general subject of the review than what one could get from reading what has been published.

These results are kind of scattered and I don’t think I can put together a coherent story by stitching together these new bits here and there. But a review paper sounds like a good place to bring them up, complementing everything that’s already out there.

My idea of a review paper is that of a critical analysis and compilation of the body of research on a specific topic which has already been published. However, it would feel silly to me (and dishonest to some degree) to write in the review that “x = 10.5” when I know from my unpublished data that actually “x = 10.8” (just an example). Hence my question: is it fine to include unpublished results in a review paper provided that they are just a small fraction of what is being discussed?

I recently got my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering (2015), and now I am doing a postdoc in Computer Science at a top tier university. I have a decent number of publications (>12) in respectable journals in my field, and an h-index of 5, some awards, travel grants, and so on. While I know numbers don’t do justice to a person, unfortunately that’s how you rate academics (which I think is part of the problem).

Despite the above, I feel increasingly lost, and not sure whether I want to pursue an academic career. I have been moving around in the world a lot, and combined with the delayed gratification of research, fixed-term contracts, intense competition, etc., I feel like I am burning out.

On the other hand, transitioning to industry scares me, since I have been dwelling in university laboratories for the past 10 years of my life. What if I don’t like it there and want to come back? With the “publish or perish” attitude, after a few years of not publishing the doors of academia would be shut for me. Or at least that’s my impression.

The result of all the above is a feeling of angst and despair, and wondering whether I have been wasting my time all these years, even though the numbers say the opposite (goddamn numbers!). Taking a break from everything and pursuing some of my hobbies for a while, on the other hand, seems like a decision that could be fruitful.

I am an European citizen applying for some academic jobs in US.

I have some doubts on one question I have to answer during the application process

1) Are you presently legally authorized to work in the United States?

My answer to this question is NO

2) Will you be able to provide proof of your identity and employment eligibility if you are hired?

What should I reply here? Is it referred to my future or current eligibility?

What is the difference between the following?

Data Sheet

Technical Reference Manual



In a project, we hit a lot of issues, and in the process, we need to quickly refer to some documentations as a first measure towards addressing the issue. Sometimes, when a small overview is required, we may end up opening a Reference Manual which has an ocean of Information with tremendous detail, and searching for what I am looking for may be tedious. Instead, if the objective behind the different types of documents is made clear, we may probably be more efficient in finding things which are relevant to us, instead of wasting effort in the wrong direction.

Please also indicate whether the types of documents I mentioned are the standard list or whether the name of these documents differs from one product to another