I am currently a graduate student, and for a course I gathered hundreds of thousands of records (not confidential, but difficult to access if you don’t already know about them and know who to talk to) and spent several months cleaning, combining, and organizing them into a usable dataset, upon which I then performed statistical analysis. The project is complete and produced interesting results, but likely I won’t turn it into a paper anytime soon.

I found out yesterday that the professor supervising the course spoke to one of his friends and mentioned my project, and the friend asked for my dataset (the cleaned one I produced, not the raw records) to perform his own analysis. Should I share it with this friend? If so, is there a way to ask to be acknowledged in any publications that result?

The data were originally public records, but I did a lot of work that required years of specialized subject-matter knowledge to compile them appropriately. Are there other risks I haven’t considered? I feel a little uncomfortable being asked to share a large amount of work with an academic I don’t know at all, and while I would like to help advance the field in general, I don’t know what’s reasonable to expect here.

Recently I submitted an IEEE conference paper about an open-source machine learning project/framework related to mobile networks. Now, I also want to demonstrate its features at another IEEE conference using a 2-page demo paper.

Considering the original paper is still in reviewing process, is it ethical to submit a related demonstration paper with the same approach to another conference. I mean from self-plagiarism aspects, can I use the same title and experiment results in demo paper as well just for showcasing purposes? If not, how can I also reference the original paper considering it is not published/accepted yet!

I am writing a manuscript dedicated to the classification of natural processes occurring worldwide. In this study, I create a composite model involving a classifier, i.e. a Neural Network model, that will be used to process the classification. The study discusses which variables, related to the observed natural processes, are more important for the classification procedure (e.g., weight matrices are described and discussed).

To explain the method, I briefly give an overview of machine learning (principles) in 3 sentences and relate it to my study. In addition, I also explain what are neural networks, and the explanation is made in the appendix (3 pages). For both, machine learning and neural network, I use a citation pointing directly to a book.

Is it preferable to leave a citation inside my manuscript so that the reviewer just takes a look at the cited book to understand how neural networks work, or can I explain the concept in the appendix (but in this case I use different citations for detailing the explanations)?

I am a 4th year Ph.D. Student. After submitting my first paper 6 months ago, I have been continuing that research. I have a lot of new methods and results, and I am almost ready to start writing again.

How do I know if I should split my research into two papers or write a single comprehensive paper? If I choose to split, how do I decide where best to split the two papers?

Without going into too much detail, I have a method that explains the causes of a fairly well studied phenomenon. I can show that there are four distinct causes of this phenomenon and explain the relative importance of each cause in different situations. If I split my research into papers 1 and 2, the conclusions of paper 1 may seem vague and inconclusive. If I combine my research into a single paper, it may be quite long and rambling. I want to choose a path that minimizes both of these problems.

My mental model for the situation is a tipi. Some of the concepts in that I need to write about have to lean on one another for support, like the tent poles of a tipi. If there are not enough concepts (or tent poles) the rest of the concepts fall short of a real conclusion; The tipi will fall over the first time there is a strong wind. There are clusters of mutually supporting concepts that I can split off into separate papers, but I have a few unique ways to divide these concepts into clusters. I suspect that any of these individual clusters will be less stable and robust that all of the concepts built into a single paper, but maybe I am just being a paranoid perfectionist.

How can I frame my dilemma to help me make this decision? What question should I ask myself to find the right balance?

X gave some nanoparticles to Y lab 2 years ago. I worked on biological characterization of these particles in Y lab as a postdoc (second postdoc) and wrote a manuscript at the end of my 2 year contract. X lab had said when I joined Y lab that their work on the nanoparticles was almost ready for publication (so approximately 3 years) but till now they have not published the work.

Three years later, they haven’t published the synthesis work. Now it is about a year since I left Y lab and there has been lack of communication across teams. Y lab people do not want to annoy X lab but do not have any plan in place of what is to be done. Y lab doesn’t keep me in the loop and only when I ask they respond with a lame excuse for delay. If I question the excuse they ignore me till I send them a few follow-ups only with a new excuse.

Is there are any workaround the situation of the materials provided if I were to publish? And also if there is no technical reason, Y lab cannot keep blocking my paper from being put on the preprint server at least. So if at all they wash their hands off the paper (I don’t think they will back off easily), how can I go about the issue of the materials provided that we used in our study if X lab refuses to be coauthors?

I am a sophomore college student in the US. I have a friend who is currently in medical school, and has successfully used the to-be delineated strategy, and has gained admission into said medical school.

Strategy: Is it a legitimate strategy to simply learn to use EndNote and format citations for researchers (and subsequently get last author on multiple papers) to get publications on one’s CV?

I am writing my master thesis in English and I understand that usually italics are used to put emphasis on a word, because it is an important or a newly introduced technical term. But I still ask myself if I have to use italics for these two cases:

  • Variables’ names. For instance, let’s suppose that I have a complex equation and the variable n appears inside this equation. If I am describing the equation in a text paragraph, and I am talking about n (e.g. “if the value of n is large enough, then…”), in this case, should n be italicized?

  • For programmers: should class names and data types be italicized? E.g. “a variable of type UInt32 is used”.

The scenario:

  • in an article, found a point/claim/fact that would fit/support perfectly a broader point I’m trying to construct (@Related works section)

The dilemma:

  • Whom to cite?
    • a) only the article in which I found the [whole] point/claim/synthesis
    • b) the original sources, the author cited during his construction of the point
    • c) both i.e. the complete paragraph or part of the paragraph that serves my purpose

Pros and cons:

  • a)
    • Pro: I pay proper respect to the author from whom I learnt about the sources/facts. + the article is the only source I really read
    • Con: I would have single reference to support the point, while in reality it there are several relevant sources (used by the author)
  • b)

    • Pro: I would provide the reader with deeper/direct references for further researching
    • Con: it is a form of plagiarism, as it would seem that it was me that read all the sources and drawn conclusion presented. The conclusion is not the issue, I discuss that particular point anyway (in my paper), but the first part bothers me: it wasn’t me that studied all that sources, but the author
  • c) seems to me as just solution but I’m not sure how it should be formulated so it is clear for reader what is reference (let it be: [1]) from the article and what (sub) references are just taken from the article (let them be: [1.a] [1.b])

Alternatively, (and this is what I would normally do):
– I follow his references, find the articles, read them and then use (some or all of) them together with other references (known to me from earlier research). The issue with such practice: too often there is no justification for referencing his article — and it seems not to be not right i.e. smells to me like a tiny plagiarism-sin.

The example:


To achieve the first goal, the crawler has to visit as many web sites as possible, and to achieve the second goal, the crawler has to
maintain the freshness of the previously visited web sites, which can
be achieved by re-visiting such web sites in a routinely manner. In
the following, the most frequently used re-visiting policies are
summarized: (1) Uniform policy: in this policy, the entire web sites
are downloaded at each visit (Bhute and Meshram, 2010; Pichler et al.,
2011; Leng et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012; Singh and Vikasn, 2014).
Although this approach enriches the databases, it requires a large
processing time. (2) Proportional policy: this policy is performed in
many ways, such as: • Downloading only the pages that have a rank more
than a threshold value specified by the crawler administrator (Bhute
and Meshram, 2010;)

From the article:

ALQARALEH, S., RAMADAN, O., & SALAMAH, M. (2015). Efficient watcher
based web crawler design. Aslib Journal of Information Management,
67(6), 663–686. http://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2015-0019

In my article I want to explain/define these two policies, together with his remarks, my own remarks, and, potentially, to expand (support) it with other sources.

I’m not sure if I formulated the issue properly, so please, do not hesitate to demand clarification. Any comments/thoughts are welcome, even if you are not sure what would be the right way.

Thanks in advance!

I am writing an article on a historical event chronicled by Plutarch and translated by the Harvard University Press and have used certain ideas and facts from his writings in my own article by summarizing some of his statements and combining it with my own ideas. I have a link to the writings that I have referred to at the end of the article, but I was wondering if I needed to add in any in text citations to give proper credit to him and translators of his work.

I work in physics.

Throughout my graduate career, I heard about people who have been known to see work done in a talk and subsequently catch up to that work and then-some, and attempt to publish first. I ignored this lore assuming it wasn’t really true.

Now I am presenting at a conference where there will be someone (actually a big-wig) who has a reputation for this sort of maneuver, and I don’t have a pre-print yet to post online.

Any recommendations about how to mitigate the potential for this to happen (besides being ready sooner obviously, I’m working very hard on this work). Thanks.