17

I think a canonical question on how academic education after bachelor’s works in Germany would be a good idea, as we get many questions where basic knowledge about this is missing. I don’t think there would be much to write about borderline cases, given that they are either decided by the hiring professor (and thus very individual) or the programme’s ...


16

I think it is hard to provide a canonical answer to "should I quit". I am worried that it is such a personal question that the answer(s) will not help the majority of people and only lead to discussion in the comments.


15

Short answer I would vote no. I think "canonical answers" only make sense when the canonical answer addresses (a) the user's actual question, or (b) some generalization of the user's question. Telling askers that their question is a "duplicate" of some vague, seemingly-unrelated question will only infuriate them. If we want to improve the ...


15

I like this proposal, because it offers useful advice while still giving us a mechanism to weed out the "A or B" questions we get this time of year.


9

Graduate Admission and Studies How should I deal with becoming discouraged as a graduate student? How does the admissions process work for Ph.D. programs in the US, particularly for weak or borderline students? Graduate school admission with a degree in a different field I've been admitted to multiple PhD programs, how should I choose between them? ...


9

I am of the opinion that reneging on an accepted PhD position, a grant, a postdoc position, and a tenure track is sufficiently different that merging them all into a single answer is not very useful. Yes, the answer to all of those questions is no, you should not, but the practical implications are, I think, different enough that the canonical answer will ...


8

If the questions are identical, definitely close. Saves everyone time. If questions are similar but subtly different, definitely stay open. The nuance may affect the answer, or may be asking for an entirely different answer (as you point out above). "Close as duplicate" is a tool for us, the answerers. Do keep in mind, though, that the first customer is ...


7

Those questions are definitely rather different from each other, and there's no ground to close them as duplicates. The only possibility I see would be that of creating a general, canonical Q&A about conflict of interest, covering the large majority of cases, and then closing those questions as duplicate of the canonical one. None of those questions have ...


7

I created the question and an answer as proposed: What does the typical workflow of a journal look like? I think that this actual realisation demonstrates that splitting this question would not be beneficial as it does not increase the additional information on alternative names and durations do not diminish the readability and can be easily skipped by ...


6

Would you rather them be closed as too specific and go ask the journal? If the answer depends on the specific journal, it is not a good question for us. If it is more of a general question, then the canonical question provides the answer. If there is something missing from the answer on the canonical question, let's fix that.


6

I do not consider having a tag for this a useful idea: We already have a list of canonical Q&As on Meta. For frequent close voters this is a better resource than a tag, because it can be structured, curated, etc. Just save it as a favourite. The proposed tag is a meta tag. It thus confuses automatisms based on tagging (which assume a connection of topic)...


6

My inclination would be to create a new question, rather than using the omnibus question. A special-purpose question allows the space to go into more detail, gives other people a chance to write competing answers, makes it much easier to find the answer (someone searching for this information is unlikely to look under "How does the admissions process work ...


4

I would categorise “What is happening to my paper” questions as follows: Questions which are directly answered by the canonical Q&A¹. These should clearly be closed as duplicate. Questions where the asker tells us little about what happened and what they already know. Your example question is typical for this category and leaves us with the following ...


4

I agree with the comments that there are multiple topics in the proposed question. In this case, I think this is not only fine, but actually desirable. Because this question will deviate from our general "policies" in a number of ways, that is why having a meta discussion first is helpful. There is nothing wrong with breaking our own rules when we as a ...


4

I think that a canonical Q&A should refer to the field. From what I have seen the amount of time the review process takes can vary widely between fields. Astronomy and Astrophysics papers (from personal experience as well as speaking with others) can make the transition from submission to acceptance (without revision) within a few weeks, but quite ...


3

Pondering my own answers to these types of question, I actually think there is a canonical version that exists. Perhaps the canonical question would be something like: Switching Positions After Accepting an Offer I have currently accepted a position, however in between when I accepted the position and now I have gotten another offer that is more appealing ...


1

I disagree that those two questions are duplicates, at least of each other. Yes, they are related. Yes, they have "the same (potential) answers", and your answer applies to both. However, I think this is because the answers are more general than the questions themselves. Going back to the SE meta thread, it states (emphasis mine): Questions asking ...


1

I think it might be better to include a list of "related questions" in the body of the respective questions. Otherwise, too much existing work will need to be merged (a very messy operation, given that all the questions are slightly different).


1

I created a question as proposed: Is my paper under review for too long and if yes, how should I react? (I just forgot to post it here.)


1

I am also in favor of separate questions with links to one another, as suggested by Energy Numbers, but for a different reason. I think pointing a user to a canonical question whose answer is very long, with many parts, is confusing for users. It's a little bit like if a student asks me a question about the Fourier transform, and in answer, I hand them the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible