You get absolutely nothing.
When you submitted the paper to the conference, you (very much likely) transferred the copyright of your paper to the publisher retaining just a couple of rights, but not that of being paid by the publisher.
The prospect of getting "scooped" in extensions to your research project is rarely a big problem, because you always maintain a head-start on others through the period of time it takes for a paper to go from completion and submission to a journal to publication. Even if your paper is extremely well-written in the first instance, there is usually ...
Here's how academic publishing works.
You write the paper. Your peers review it for free. The journal charges people to read the paper to cover copy-editing/hosting costs, and to make a profit.
You write a paper. Your peers review it for free. The journal charges you to cover copy-editing/hosting costs, and to make a profit, then gives it away for free.
While I agree with previous comments, I believe that your question indicates, respectfully, a misunderstanding of the scientific endeavor.
The entire point of scientific publishing is to have your work noticed by others and for them to build on it. This is what drives science forward. The vast majority of great scientists worked with a large group of ...
Yes you do have to answer these questions, and math papers do. But you may not have noticed it as a non-mathematician, because math research is extremely specialized, and the broader picture will still be incomprehensible to you (or to most mathematicians).
Suppose I wanted to read Wiles's paper providing the final piece of the proof of Fermat's Last ...
It would be fine to contact them and say that you tried X and would like their help figuring out why you did not get result Y.
Assuming you are right and they are wrong might be considered rude by some people.
I am assuming that your line manager is your PI and that you would normally take any issues or problems relating to your work to them. If that is the case, then you ought to report your concerns to your PI.
While it sounds like you don't have a good rapport with your PI, that does not prevent you from behaving professionally.
Ask your PI for a meeting, raise ...
I assume you're doing CO2, in which case you frame it as a serious safety concern and insist on looking into it. You're in an enclosed space with an asphyxiant that appears to be leaking. This is a critical health and safety issue and should be treated accordingly.
It's unlikely in my opinion that you are being sabotaged but if you are whoever is doing it ...
In my field (in computer science), posters are usually a "low cost, low benefit" activity.
A small amount of visibility
A small but nice CV entry
A small opportunity for feedback and input
A small time investment for actually developing the poster and, sometimes, writing up an accompanying paper
A small cost for registering at the ...
Referring to @ZeroTheHero's answer ("an email alert from an undergraduate would instantly go in the trash and/or spam"); if you are working under the supervision of someone else, even nominally, it would be a good idea to run your issues by them first, for two reasons:
you might be mistaken, a more senior person in your field might be able to ...
Whether a researcher has an ethical obligation to act is field dependent: I know no field that requires a researcher to reveal their research beliefs; researchers are ethically free to keep their research private. (Perhaps with some exceptions which demand disclosure to the state. And some well-defined contexts, e.g., human experimentation, as noted in a ...
I don't see much downside to this provided that you submit a full paper to a reputable journal at the earliest opportunity. You will be putting ideas out there that a few people might find it worthwhile to follow up with. They need not even have a motive to scoop you but their work could make yours moot for a full publication.
I'm not suggesting you withdraw ...
I have documents showing that this individual has shared the paper content with other people
Nothing necessarily wrong with this. It's polite to get permission from co-authors especially before sharing broadly outside your group, and can be rude not to, but it's normal for academics to talk about what they are working on with other academics close to them.
Most undergraduate research experiences, even when successful, do not result in a scientific publication.
The time is simply too short and the experience of the student typically too little to produce a publication-worthy result in that time. Moreover, because the supervisor knows that, in many cases undergraduates are given tasks that will be useful ...
Broadly speaking there are three reasons to do research:
To push the boundaries of human knowledge forward for the betterment of humanity
Because you personally find it interesting and exciting and rewarding
Because the knowledge gives an organisation a competitive advantage over another organisation.
(Note these are not mutually exclusive)
If you are in ...
If you perceive other researchers only as adversaries and competitors who encroach on “your” territory, then I strongly suspect your definition of what it means to “do good research” is fundamentally different than that of actual good researchers.
A true good researcher does not worry about running out of things to work on, because they understand that the ...
It is critical that you approach the matter from the most objective point of view possible. Most importantly, do not make any assumptions about who did it and why it happened.
I can only repeat: do not make any assumptions about who did it and why it happened.
While it is quite possible that someone sabotages you, it may be that there is a misalignment of ...
It's better to share your ideas before publishing. This way you can improve your paper.
A talk would give you more time to develop your idea.
It could be noisy when a lot of people are on nearby posters and you try to talk with someone.
Ben said it best. Let me add a couple pieces of information:
The world is vast, and you never know what everyone else is working on. There may be one or multiple people out there duplicating your foundational work right now. Publishing now frees them to pursue more useful, non-redundant work. Also, if you care at all about recognition, publishing first gets ...
What is the scope of an unregistered IRB?
To uphold the university's ethical guidelines. If you are doing research on behalf of your community college, this IRB can give you the green light on behalf of the community college. Since it is unregistered, it cannot give the green light on behalf of the FDA. Other stakeholders, like funding agencies or journals, ...
Do I even need IRB approval for my research?
Quite probably, but if you are exempt you must get the exemption from an IRB.
What do you recommend for my situation?
You are trying to use a community college to solve a problem (research and product development) that community colleges are not intended to solve. Don't do that. If you want to learn to do ...
Some researchers have a habit of casually run their vague ideas by others in their team, particularly those on whom they have some kind of power or influence. If you refuse to work with them, you may be labelled "not a team player", which no-one wants. People are generally excited to collaborate, and happy to put down some work to start what they ...
This answer assumed that OP was in some way senior to their counterpart, either in position or experience. Since this assumption is not true (OP is a masters student, the other person is a PhD student), it seems there is some fault for both parties in how they communicated expectations at the beginning of the project.
It's going to be difficult if not ...
Am I heading on to disastrous career by considering her offer?
No. There is nothing wrong with considering and accepting a job offer from your PhD advisor, or an extension thereof.
What is disastrous for your career is not looking for a better job and taking one as soon as it is feasible to do so.
Tables can typically be included verbatim (under fair use), just cite your source.
Turnitin is presumably just detecting verbatim inclusion. Assuming you've correctly cited your source, you can ignore.
Is the paper wrong in the sense that it is incorrect? Or is it wrong in the sense that it is bogus, to the point where one wonders how the journal could possibly have published such nonsense?
In the former scenario: you don't complain. You write a new paper that says the original paper is wrong because [reasons]. You can submit it to the same journal, ...