I have this colleague who is somewhat sloppy with their work e.g. not doing proper experiments, not ensuring the setups are correct, wrong citations, etc.

Now, we're all humans and we do mistakes; I appreciate that. However, if it's just pure laziness and the don't-care-attitude... that I've a problem.

Would you consider this lazy-don't-care-attitude unethical? Or, at least problematic to you in a huge way? How do you handle them?

Ok I didn't go to this particular conference that has accepted my paper; I wanted to cite the paper but can I site it as a paper that has been published (in a proceeding)?

Thank you for the replies.

The talk has been cited; the speaker is a prominent member of the research community. I've also cited my own paper; I needed some data to support the paper.

The lectures; well, I heard them years ago during my undergraduate degree and the lecturers were using the textbooks to deliver the materials (I think).

I've written a lot of things on this particular paper that I'm planning to submit to a conference; most of the things that I've written are based on my readings, attended lectures, own understanding, talks, etc. I wrote all the things on the paper by myself so I basically wrote them based on my understanding; should I cite them though?

I have my reference section but for this paper, I only put citations/references if it's something like:
(1)definitions (e.g. "Smith (1999) defined ... ")
(2)ideas from the actual inventor that needs to be named (e.g. "Smith (1982) stated ... ").
(3)data from the paper(s) (e.g. "Table 1, from Smith (1980)" )
(4)anything that needs to be "supported by someone else" (e.g. "This has been supported by Smith (1991)").

I also want to limit the actual citations/references so that I don't have to check them one-by-one to ensure that I'm citing/referring the correct things.

Other than the 4 things I mentioned above, what I've written is a mixture of my readings, attended lecturers, own understanding, talks, etc; should I cite/reference them?

Is there a difference(s) between preparing a paper to be submitted to a conference (proceeding) and a journal?

Is it normal for the researcher/presenter to be absent from a conference presentation?

I submitted a paper, been peer reviewed, reedited, resubmitted, payed the fees and waited for a year for the whole process. However, I found out that the university doesn't approve the conference so there's no funding to the conference and it seems that the conference has problems of its own now after further investigation : (

I now need to find a new conference venue; but I'm unmotivated to do so fearing the same thing will happen again. Any advice is much appreciated : (

Ok, I'm doing this particular study on A, and A consists of 3 subgroups; lets call these subgroups as A_1, A_2 and A_3.

The [B]total population[/B] for A_1, A_2 and A_3 is [B]300[/B].
However, the distribution of each of this group is not equal, e.g. A_1 is [B]100[/B], A_2 is [B]25[/B] and A_3 is [B]175[/B].

Is it possible to use simple random sampling to calculate a sample size for each subgroups or should the sample size be calculated as whole?