While this doesn't address academic publishing, you might find this research interesting: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025 "Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility" I'm no expert, but apparently non-native speakers are at disadvantage in making themselves sound credible. Interestingly, the authors claim that this is due not to stereotypes of prejudice against foreigners but to difficulty in processing non-native speech. I wonder if hard-to-process non-native writing also causes a similar phenomenon...

@Electricman That sucks. Sorry to hear that. Seems like you need to get a hold of the co-author or go the complete rewrite rout, which, while not related to what you asked, is probably a much better option in the first place...

Anyway, if what you want to do isn't locating a string of words in document A which also appears in document B, what exactly do you want to do? I thought this was basically what CrossCheck was doing...

@Electricman The description of the software on the official page and blog posts from users seem to suggest this particular one does much more than typical line-by-line comparison, though. It looks like it detects identical strings of words/phrases of which you can determine parameters like length. But if you tried it and think it's the same as line-by-line comparison, I guess I was wrong; I've never used it myself. BTW, services like CrossRef are usually for publishers; such a large automated checking needs access to tons of copyrighted papers.

I guess you want something like the reverse of diff for two very different files. I have no idea how well this works, but WCopyfind seems to do just that: plagiarism.bloomfieldmedia.com/z-wordpress/software/wcopyfin‌​d Here's what they say in the instructions: WCopyfind compares text or word processor documents with one another to determine if they share words in phrases. WCopyfind reads .DOCX, .TXT, and .HTML files natively and it does a pretty good job of reading .PDF files, as long as they contain text content rather than pure image content.

Besides, the publisher could do the same thing regardless of when you transfer copyright; your paper gets accepted and edited, so you give them the copyright. A few days later, you take a look at the latest issue, and lo and behold, the published version doesn't look anything like what you've written! I'm no lawyer, but I want to believe that there has to be a law that protects you from this kind of behavior other than copyright... I mean, if your name is abused this way, and if copyright is the only weapon to fight back, it's the publisher who has that precious weapon when you fight back...

@PeteL.Clark I agree that copyright transfer should be after/subject to acceptance and should be void if withdrawn by the author(s). But I'm not sure if it's the copyright that protects you from the publisher's evil modification such as publishing a paper under your name with contents you've never written or agreed with. Sure, it's unethical (and illegal in a serious case) to put words into your mouth, or to trick people into believing it's your work when it's not. But if your name is used this way without your consent, it seems to me it's more than just a copyright problem.

Anyway, IEEE Xplore is notoriously poor when it comes to author identification. As you publish more papers, you'll start to see some papers missing when you click on your name in one paper, and another set of papers missing in another list you arrive at from a different paper of yours. And both of them probably have tons of papers by others. It's disastrous if your name is a common Chinese one. (And by common, I mean you've got lots of namesakes when transliterated in the Latin alphabet, regardless of whether they're spelled differently in Chinese.)

Here's from the horse's mouth: **IEEE authors may request an update to their display name by submitting a request to [email protected] ** ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplorehelp/#/searchingIeeeXplore/… If it's due to how your name is displayed on IEEE Xplore, this should help. If not, I'm guessing that you can also ask them to correct their data if there is an error in their author identification.

@scaaahu Yes, there are ways to fairly accurately identify undergraduate work, e.g., submission dates, co-authors, affiliations, and the like. That's why I said "...unless whoever reading your CV bothers to dig deeper information from other sources." Also, I perfectly agree that you should not hide your publications. I'm sorry if my wording was confusing or otherwise poorly phrased. What I'm saying is literally what I wrote in the first comment. And I'm definitely not being against your comment or jakebeal's. I agree with you two, maybe except the part it's clear which is undergraduate work.

@scaaahu In the particular case of the CV I gave a link to, he got his BS in 2006. There is one paper published in 2009, two in 2008, four in 2007 under the undergraduate research section. Of course there are some more before 2007. So your guess would be way off in this case. This is partly because it takes longer to publish in math, and also because this case is an outlier of sort, though. I don't doubt your method works much better for a typical case in your field.

Well, I'm not particularly for or against separating publications. I'm simply curious how you can be sure that "your degree history makes it clear they are from undergrad," which is in your answer. By the way, I agree that your publications are your publications, and it is better to let the reader judge their value. But I also think that it's not a bad idea to make it easier for the reader to judge, e.g., separating refereed journal papers from non-refereed ones, or separating journal articles from conference papers. It may not be so strange to deal with undergrad work like this.

I'm not sure if your degree history always makes it clear which publications are from undergrad unless whoever reading your CV bothers to dig deeper information from other sources. For example, how can you tell which were from undergraduate on this CV math.mit.edu/~fox/cvfox102313.pdf ? There are some papers published in 2008 and 2009 which were not undergraduate work. And there are some other papers in the same years that are undergraduate work. How would you know which belongs to which category if it were not for the "Undergraduate research" section?

I've seen CVs (of mathematicians) with designed subsections for publications as undergraduate work at the end of usual journal article sections. I don't know what others think of this style, but it left no negative impression on me. At least to me, it doesn't carry any negative connotation. But you might want to seek specific advice from your advisor because most likely s/he knows the culture, customs, and your work waaay better than any of us here.

Since OP asked "frequency" rather than the raw number of total citations, it might make sense to divide the number of citations to a book by its age. In this case, only a few, if at all, would beat Quantum computation and quantum information by M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang: scholar.google.com/…

Yeah, I agree. It's hardly worth it to falsify qualifications, and I tend to doubt they have a strict validation mechanism. But I think this implies that the fact that I am a member of a certain academic society in itself adds pretty much nothing to my CV. What actually tells something about me is perhaps the fact that for me it's worth some nontrivial money to be an IEEE member; I may be benefitting from conference fee discounts, want the fields IEEE covers to grow, etc., which in turn may look good to the eye of people who are looking to hire an engineer, scientist, etc. in a given field.

This comment has nothing to do with whether it's good to put membership on your CV. But does IEEE really check if an applicant is qualified for regular membership? Maybe they do for student membership (because of the discount on the membership fee), and I know applications/selection of IEEE Fellows and whatnot are very strictly regulated. But I don't remember they checked if I actually got my degree in one of those qualified fields or if I had experience long enough when I joined as a regular IEEE member.

@ff524 Thanks for clearing that up. So, if a thread gets closed or reopened in the way comments asked, then those comments are considered obsolete. But they may stay there if the status of the thread in question doesn't change or they are considered obsolete when they are made (e.g., explaining how closing/reopening was not appropriate when the action has already been reversed). Do I understand it right? That makes sense. (And you can delete my comments here, too.)

@ff524 Why don't you just ignore xLeitix's comments there (the two comments right above) and delete them when this thread is already closed? Shouldn't they go to meta? I thought that was the "consensus" of this SE and what you had been doing as a moderator.