Bryan Krause

@Shayanss The academic ethics violation would be failing to offer the opportunity to earn authorship. A similar situation would be that authorship guidelines often require that all authors are involved in both some aspect of 1) the design of the project/collection of the data/analysis of the results and also 2) preparation and approval of the manuscript. If people have done (1), you can't just quickly race to write and submit the manuscript on your own and say "oops, they only did (1) and not (2), guess they're not an author". Your situation is not as extreme as that but same family.

@Shayanss Exactly, this is not about copyright, yet almost all of the arguments that you are clearly in the right (arguments about licensing, sharing, etc) are being made from the perspective of copyright.

@niemc Copyright laws about data are not the only relevant factor. Whether or not data are copyrightable, they are often extremely time-consuming to collect and so academic norms often give a big chunk of authorship credit towards providers of data. Even if that data has been provided openly to other research groups, it's not normal to just throw out the people that did half the work for the second phase of a project. Though it's possible that the meaning of 'data' and effort required to obtain it in OP's field is different than mine.

@WhatTheDuck OP wrote that the "same model files" were used in the new paper, model files that the co-author apparently created.

It also doesn't seem like h-index is being used to rank conferences for OP's purpose, rather the funder is looking for some quantitative evidence that it's paying for people to present in conferences where there work will be seen and cited, probably as a reaction to having funded people to go to conferences which are purely predatory and where people don't get cited and therefore it's a waste of their funds

@ZeroTheHero It kind of doesn't matter whether or not H-index is useful for a conference (I think it's more useful than you're admitting, despite the obvious limits) for OP who is under some external pressure to provide H-index as justification and is asking, therefore, how to obtain this number. OP is not designing this system and has no control over it.

@ÆzorÆhai-him- You're trying to avoid copyright/license restrictions on a derivative translation? Just model it as an equation that can't be copyrighted and add some flavor text to make it harder to detect that it's a copy. Easy right? Why do lawyers need their own degree, anyway?

@RogerV. OP is asking about a translation. Other users have provided you with references that indicate translations are explicitly "derivative work" in copyright law where copyright law applies. You are inventing your own idea of "derivative work" not from law, saying this other thing happens a lot, and therefore concluding the law doesn't apply and OP can just ignore it. Your analysis is wrong, and the score on your post indicates others find it wrong, too.

My assumption that they need an answer to the question they asked is based on them asking the question; why would I need assumptions beyond that?

Why did you not incorporate this quote from the linked Law.SE answer?: "If you are re-using material for which you do not own the copyrights, either because it was (in part) written by others, or due to a contract you signed with a publisher, then that re-use is a copyright violation. There is no amount of modification you can do to make it stop being a copyright violation"

@RogerV. You're giving extremely bad advice, and making it worse as people explain to you how bad your advice is, and somehow you've convinced the person most in need of good advice (OP) to accept yours instead. I think ganging up is appropriate in this circumstance.

Wow, the information extracted from that Law.SE Q&A is even more misleading with respect to the specific question asked here than the original draft of this answer. Not to mention that OP talked about a book chapter and apparently you've written your answer by assuming that a book chapter consists of a series of equations that everyone writing a book chapter would be expected to use verbatim because those are the only interesting equations in the world.

@RogerV. Your comment reads a bit like "it does not suggest committing an obvious murder, but rather killing someone carefully so it's not against the murder law". That is, what you describe doing does not actually get around copyright, you're just suggesting making it harder to detect that you're violating copyright, hard enough that the company won't bother with a lawsuit.

There are multiple different answers that all work together. Again, I insist, read the linked thread :) I know it doesn't look exactly like the question you asked but all the concepts are the same.

Why would the carriers die out? I gave an example above where they'd become more common in the population. Also easy to persist by random chance given a small overall effect on fitness.

There's also the complication that humans control their reproduction quite a bit, especially in modern days, so someone who loses a child to a homozygous recessive gene may just have another child. Especially if it's something that causes early miscarriage, it's probably not something we even have any label on, early miscarriage is really common, and we probably wouldn't even detect such a couple as having fertility problems if it's only a 25% chance and occurs early enough.

For an example with a recessive allele that's fatal in homozygotes, let's say it's in 1% of the population, that means with random assortment someone with that allele will only have 0.25% of their offspring die from that disease. If it makes them just 1% more likely to reproduce through some other mechanism, it's not a negative trait in that environment; it may become negative if the prevalence increases.

There's a big difference between invariably and not invariably, if you start introducing things that aren't always fatal (including recessive alleles that are only fatal homozygous) then the whole ballgame changes. Anyways, I'd read the entire thread of the Q&A I linked, there are a lot of other factors to consider.

If an allele invariably causes death before reproduction, by definition it won't ever be passed on, so any rate that allele occurs will be by new mutation only.

Can you give an example of an allele that invariably results in death within 5 years yet circulates in the population?

I don't see how that qualification makes anything I said any different.

Selection can only operate on variation that actually exists; if there's no individual with heritable immunity to some condition, that condition can't go away. Traits are often complex where a trait that's bad in one sense is good in another. An example might be that a trait that makes you less susceptible to parasitic infection makes you more susceptible to autoimmune disease: both could involve increasing the responsiveness of the immune system. So even if autoimmune disorders are bad, they'll persist as long as parasites also pose a risk.

Remember that species are somewhat arbitrary classifications, especially looking back over time: every organism on Earth has been evolving the same amount of time since life began. Sure some organisms have more generations in that time because they reproduce more quickly but that's it. I think your question is mostly answered by: biology.stackexchange.com/questions/35532/…

Step 0: Talk to your advisor.

@Guagino I fear you posted this just looking for validation and for people to tell you a specific answer. That's usually not a good fit for the community here, which tends to instead help people navigate academia by explaining why someone might say something, what's motivating them and what they are thinking. "I just said I don't remember it" is something that can be perceived as dismissing a question if the asker wanted to know how you might think about a question that you didn't remember the answer to.

I think you are just entirely misunderstanding the claim.

All of your body tissues have gas dissolved, if you measure the total dissolved pressure of gas in any of the tissues of your body, it'll be right around atmospheric pressure. It takes a long time to equilibrate, too long for the level of gas exchange needed for cellular respiration, but it's not a sealed system.

The "either" in your answer doesn't make any sense. "Overcome the atmospheric pressure" is the one and only thing that has to happen, because, like my answer says, "The atmosphere is pushing on all of the exposed surfaces on your body which in turn push on each other, putting everything under pressure". If the blood could be compressed (which it can, but only a little bit), it would already be compressed by the atmospheric pressure up to exactly the volume that it has at that pressure.

@jonas-eschle I'm telling you that there are multiple levels of "getting an idea". If you need the entire paper, that's too much "getting an idea" for work where you aren't allowed to collaborate. Your explanation is not a believable one and too high of a standard. With that standard, it would not be possible to forbid sharing of work, because anyone you would accuse would use your excuse. I wrote "only", I also wrote "need". Please use all of the words.

@jonas-eschle What I wrote in the answer itself was "more or less copy". "More" copy might be word-for-word, "less" copy might be "re-use the arguments but in own words". Both of these are cheating if they are forbidden for an assignment where students are expected to work alone. Whether two different types of cheating are the "same" wrong or "different" wrong is a lumpers-vs-splitters argument that cannot be resolved.

@jonas-eschle Relax, take a breath, and read what I am saying: if a student needs the whole copy of the paper to "get an idea" of it, they are likely using that paper to assist them with something the instructor intended them to do on their own. This is cheating whether they are caught or not and whether they copy the words or not. You are too focused on verbatim copying as the only thing that is wrong.

@jonas-eschle It is not your decision that what you liked to do, like looking at the work of others, must be something that an instructor permits. If the instructor thinks you'll learn better by thinking on your own for a particular assignment, that's reasonable and if you want to take their course then you're signing up to be bound by their rules. For a different assignment, an instructor might be totally fine with it. In this particular case, a student turned in work that was not their own, and OP's son facilitated this by sharing their work.

OP's son tried to share without getting caught. They said "don't copy, because they'll catch you copying." If the student was supposed to come up with their own ideas because the whole point of the assignment is to make the student think, not to just produce words on a page, they cheated either way.

@MikeSteele I'm not necessarily advocating for this policy, I'm just describing why it might make sense for an institution. If the person OP's son shared with was expected to work independently, they helped them cheat when they gave them the paper. It's less like a car and more like...a prescription drug. The provider commits the crime when they give someone the pills, not when the pills are swallowed. Without forbidding sharing, people who help others cheat can never be held responsible because they just always say "Oh I shared but they weren't supposed to copy".

@jonas-eschle Doesn't need to be, but come on and be realistic: what do you think students are usually wanting to use another student's last year paper for? If the instructor thought students needed last year's papers, they could share examples themselves, and then not only the students who happen to know someone who took the course would have them. Or the instructors, as is typical, expected the students to work independently, not off of last year's work by other students. Choosing the goal of the task is the instructor's job; that goal determines what is cheating, not "student intention".

@jonas-eschle This situation is not inspiration in the academic research context when you build on a paper. This is getting ideas for a course paper where the instructor is expecting students to have ideas on their own based on course content, not based on prior year's student work. For a course where a student is expected to produce original work, the depth of reading you describe where a student might take the structure of arguments and evidence for those arguments and then use them would almost certainly also be cheating even if no words are used.

@maliebina I am inferring from OP's son being accused of misconduct for sharing a paper that there is some policy against sharing papers and explaining why such a rule may make sense even if it didn't make sense to OP. Of course if this rule doesn't exist then the situation is different. It doesn't really help if I cite someone else's policy, the only policy that matters is the specific policy at the specific institution, and without asking OP to reveal the institution all I have to go on is their description of the scenario.

@Kvothe From the school's perspective, the student gave their paper to another student who then submitted it as their own work. This could have been stopped if the student didn't share their work, so they contributed to the violation. Treating sharing work as a violation makes it less likely someone has an opportunity to cheat so reduces cheating. Anyone who shares their work can claim "Oh, I shared it but didn't expect them to copy", or worse and more honestly, "I expected them to modify enough to not get caught!"

@AuraWare Almost all of the temporal lobes of the cerebrum that we know about are themselves found on Earth (occasionally a couple of them might be in Earth orbit), so certainly what they are made of us found on Earth, no?

@AshishShukla I hope you're not in charge of the care of others.

@AshishShukla There is no such thing as "medically induced depression". What an evil thing to consider.

@AshishShukla We know that depressed people do not get better faster when they are sick and do not avoid getting sick.

@AshishShukla I think you've completely missed KateGregory's point, I'd read her comment again carefully and make sure you've understood it all and not just jump in with your counterpoint.

My guess, since OP mentions measurement scales, is something like OP's original analysis treated an ordinal variable like a continuous one. That may have even been standard in the field. But now people expect that variable to be treated like the ordinal variable it is. OP might have an argument that they are too close to graduation for a change like that, but it's also not really fair to characterize this as a "simple mistake", it's just that the advisor is giving guidance on the current state of the field and what is expected for publication. Just a guess, though.

@maliebina The job of a PhD supervisor is to train their students for independent research. Again, both seem at fault here, but it's the student asking the question here, not the supervisor. The student needs feedback about what they can do better, reassurance that their supervisor sucks doesn't get them a paper.

@wsdmv1995 The supervisor is to blame too, of course, but if you're not ready to take responsibility for your own work, you're not ready to graduate to being an independent researcher. That's why collaborative research is a very good thing: lots of people responsible means lots of chances to catch errors. A supervisor can guide you to use some particular scale but you also need to understand the motivation for that choice yourself (and yes, your supervisor should also explain that this is something you need to learn and not just something you lean on them for).

@wsdmv1995 He made a very basic mistake a few years ago? It's your paper. It's your mistake. Especially if it's "very basic". My comments are from experience that work that sits for 4 years is likely stale by the time it gets to publication and it's likely there is a lot that needs to be updated by then. And, in my experience, it's usually the students who are realizing this and telling their advisors about it. Advisors learn a lot from their students this way. I'm responding to the other commenter's overgeneralizing, not your specific situation.

@maliebina Possible timeline: 1) 4 years ago, OP does work. 2) 3 months ago, advisor reads a published paper. 3) Today, advisor reviews OP's latest version, realizes a foundational element of the paper conflicts with the paper they read 3 months ago. Should the advisor have realized the issue 3 months ago? Maybe, but with lots of things going on the connection may not have been apparent until now. But it doesn't mean they ignored an issue for four years, and it doesn't mean OP is stuck reediting until they die.

@maliebina None of us here in the comments have enough information to conclude that, and OP's advisor(s) may have a differing view of what they may have learned recently vs not so recently compared to OP's view. Also, the world changes; sometimes other people publish work that tell us we need to change our own. Especially in the realm of data analysis and modeling. Maybe the world doesn't change that much in two years but our understanding of it can change a lot.

@maliebina The only people who are catching every major problem at the very beginning of every project either aren't paying any attention past that point and proudly marching forward through every later discovered flaw, or they're doing some really boring work. Good research is hard but you learn the whole way through.