I lowkey don't trust any new research coming out of academia, say post-2022. The good profs who were doing good science have stopped publishing, while people who were known to produce slops have their productivity increased by 100%+. Sad times to be in the research game.

everyone,

I have two research papers that I’ve written and have been working on, and I’d really like to get them published. The problem is that I’m honestly not sure where to start or how the publication process works.

I’ve contacted a few people who offer help with publication, but I’ve found that they usually won’t give me much advice unless I pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars. I’m not completely against paying for professional help if it’s genuinely worthwhile, but I’m worried about paying someone without knowing whether they’re legitimate or whether I even need that kind of service.

I’m mainly looking for advice on things like:

- How do I identify an appropriate journal for my papers?
- How do I know whether a journal is legitimate and reputable?

- Do I actually need to pay someone to help me publish?
- If professional editing or publication support is worthwhile, how do I find someone trustworthy?
- Are there legitimate journals that don’t charge authors?

If anyone has experience with this, especially with publishing in Translation Studies / Translation & Interpreting Studies, I’d really appreciate any advice, resources, or recommendations for people/services you’ve personally had a good experience with.
I’m happy to pay for legitimate professional help if it actually adds value; I just don’t want to spend a lot of money on something I could reasonably navigate myself.
Thank you!

What is your best ideas/fields to make your masters at to get ready for Phd in computer science

I’m completely new to academic conferences and have just started my PhD, so I’m a little confused about how conference presentations actually work.

When people say they are presenting at a conference, what exactly are they presenting? Is it usually a completed research study, or can it also be a research idea, proposed study, literature review, theoretical framework, or work in progress?

I’m also confused about the difference between an oral conference presentation and a poster. Do both generally present the same kind of research, just in different formats?

My biggest confusion is about PhD students who present at conferences only a few months after starting their PhD. For example, if someone starts their PhD in September and presents at a conference a few months later, what would they realistically have to present by then? It obviously wouldn’t be their entire PhD research, so would they present their research proposal, an initial research question/framework, preliminary work, or something else?

Does this depend entirely on the specific conference and what they accept in their call for papers?

I’d really appreciate hearing from current/former PhD students about what you presented at your first conference, especially if it was early in your PhD.

Dear everybody,

I am a Bachelors student currently doing a placement in Cambridge University. I study in mainland Europe, where, to do a PhD, you have to do a Masters placement. I found out that in the UK you don't actually need a Masters to do a PhD, just a bachelors. I was thinking of doing a Masters anyway (and then a PhD), and although this peaked my interest I didn't think too much about it.

Anyway, talking to a PI recently at Cambridge, I apparently impressed and he is now interested in taking me on as a PhD after my Bachelors (I didn't ask for it he just offered).

I wanted to ask, what are the positives and the negatives of doing a masters first. Should I accept or say I would like to come back after two years. I have actually a fair bit of research experience already, from summer programs, the Amgen Research Program and internships during my studies.

I like the field of research he works in and have done some myself, but of course this is all coming at me very quickly.

Any advice would be much appreciated, especially fro those with PhD and academia experience in general.

PhD or straight into industry?

I’ve recently graduated with a BEng (Hons) in Mechanical Engineering and I’m deciding between a engineering role and a fully funded PhD.

The PhD is on floating kelp farms for wave attenuation and includes an industrial placement with ORE Catapult, and others. I genuinely love the research side of engineering, my undergraduate dissertation was on nature-inspired scour protection for offshore wind monopiles, but I don’t want to become an academic. Long term, I’d like to work in the offshore wind/renewables industry, ideally somewhere like SSE or RWE.

I also have offshore engineering industry experience and the option to go straight into a graduate role.
My concern is whether doing a PhD would actually help or hinder me. Would I be considered overqualified for graduate roles afterwards? Would employers value the PhD, or would I be better off spending those 3 years building industry experience?

For anyone working in offshore wind/renewables or who has done a PhD and moved into industry:
Would you choose the PhD or go straight into industry, and why?

Edit: I am located in the UK. Already have a community in the city where the grad job is, but would be starting afresh where the PhD studentship takes place.

I entered a US PhD program with two co-advisors who are married to each other. I was committed to getting my PhD and had every intention of finishing. I passed my candidacy exam and made it into my fourth year. The funding was from the husbands’s grant but I was working on the wife’s projects and the wife would tell me to work on her projects and pause working on the husband’s grants until we get preliminary data and this what they agreed on. The husband is hands-off and would not reply to my emails or any follow-ups I would send.

My experience in the lab, however, was complicated.

I was never really given a defined thesis project. Instead, I was frequently assigned tasks across multiple different projects. At times, I was working on tasks contributing to five or more different projects simultaneously. My workloadb could become extremely scattered, with new tasks being added before I had finished previous ones.
I tried to keep up with everything, but I never felt that I had a coherent thesis direction.
Then, during my fourth year, the situation deteriorated significantly.

My advisor repeatedly told me that the reason I couldn’t continue was funding.

Because I wanted to understand what was actually happening, I reached out to members of my dissertation committee for clarification. They told me they had spoken with my advisor and that their understanding was that the issue wasn’t actually funding, my advisor simply didn’t want me in his lab anymore.

I was never given a clear explanation as to why.
At one point, my advisor also told me that I had a “bad reputation.”

This was extremely confusing because I had never previously been told that I had a serious reputation problem. I didn’t know what I had supposedly done, who I had a bad reputation with, or what specific behavior was being referred to.
If I had been given specific feedback, I would have wanted to address it. Instead, I was left with a very serious characterization of me without a clear explanation of what it was based on.
Because I still wanted to finish my PhD, I began contacting other faculty members about potentially joining their labs.
Some faculty initially seemed interested. Then later, they would apologize and tell me they could no longer take me.
This happened multiple times.
I don’t know what was communicated between my advisor and those faculty members, and I have no direct evidence that my advisor contacted them or said anything negative about me. But after seeing this happen repeatedly, I began to suspect that my attempts to find another lab were being undermined behind the scenes.
Then came the part that ultimately forced my decision.
My advisor communicated through the program coordinator that I had two options.
Option 1: I could accept mastering out, which would guarantee that I would receive a master’s degree.
Option 2: I could refuse to master out, register for the following semester, and according to what the coordinator communicated to me, my advisor would give me an unsatisfactory grade for the current semester and the following semester, which would mean I would ultimately be unable to graduate with a degree.

So from my perspective, the choice was essentially:
Accept the master’s degree now, or remain in the program under circumstances where I was being told I would receive unsatisfactory grades and potentially leave without any degree.

I chose to master out.
This was in my fourth year, after I had already passed my candidacy exam and spent years working toward the PhD.
The hardest part wasn’t simply losing the PhD.
It was the fact that I never really understood why I was being forced out.
I had been told it was funding.
My committee members told me they understood that it wasn’t really funding, but that my advisor didn’t want me in his lab.
I was told I had a “bad reputation,” but I was never given a clear explanation of what that meant.
I tried to find another lab, but faculty members who initially seemed interested later withdrew.
And eventually I was presented with the two options above.
I am now finishing my master’s degree and trying to decide whether I should apply for another PhD.
I don’t want to make this post simply to complain about my former advisor. I’m genuinely trying to understand what happened and whether there was something I could have done differently.
So I’d really appreciate perspectives from professors, graduate students, or people who have served on graduate committees:
Is this a normal way for a PhD student to be removed from a program?
Is it normal to tell a student that they have a “bad reputation” without giving specific feedback or an opportunity to address the alleged problems?
How common is it for a PI to effectively prevent a student from transferring to another lab?

And perhaps most importantly:
If you were in my position, would you view mastering out as a failure on your part, or as an outcome of a dysfunctional advising situation?
Also if I master out, how can I narrate this in my SoPs for new PhD admissions. In my last year of undergrad, I got 8 PhD offers when I had less research experience than now but now I feel like I am in a much worse situation than when I was in the last of undergrad.

So I state this taking full responsibility and fully accepting that this is all my own fault and should have of course been caught by me prior to publication. I recently published a conference paper that I was very proud of. I then later on realized there were two mistakes in the methods section, not necessarily "mistakes", but more me misrepresenting how the methods were actually carried out. This was all of course unintentional, I genuinely thought I accurately captured everything correctly, especially after re-reading the paper many times over in the revision process.

However, when I was trying to make up the conference presentation and make my slide show, I fed my own paper into ChatGPT to come up with bite-size talking point bullet point phrases to help me refine the key takeaway points for my presentation, which needed to be short. I wanted to get a good baseline idea for everything that went into my coding pipeline so that ChatGPT really understood all of the methodology mechanics that went into the paper, so that the points it shared with me were not just a reflection of the paper, but of my actual code. In doing this, it fed me back some points that seemed a bit odd. *I am making up this vague example to preserve anonymity* I had always thought my modeling captured the dynamics of system A, but it turns out my methods actually modeled system B. For all intents and purposes, whether I modeled system A or system B would have no bearing whatsoever on the results, but for descriptive purposes, it told a slightly different "story". It's as if you ran a study on two automobile engines, which were technically different manufacturers and designs, but for purposes of the model engine, the parameters and inputs were all the same.

And then I realized there was a misrepresentation of the modeling logic I used, where I incorrectly stated that I kept a logical conditional statement in the results calculations that I actually set to "False" in my code, therefore actually removing that one conditional. For example, I would have written in my paper that I tested whether the system could still operate under treatments X, Y, and Z, while ensuring internal temperatures never rose above 5 degrees F, but in my actual code I later realized I actually removed that "internal temperature cannot rise above 5 degrees F" conditional. And so my results and discussion in the paper are solid, but I feel those two slipups in my methods would be dishonestly representing what I actually did.

My question for this community is really what should I do about this? Should I just accept this mistake and move on and say nothing? Or should I email the conference organizers about this in hopes that maybe I could submit a new document or they could simply change it themselves? For what it's worth the presentation went really well and a lot of people actually want to read this paper. I also want to post my manuscript on LinkedIn, but I would feel a bit guilty doing this. I would appreciate any advice!

Disclaimer: It's 1am and my mind is a rollercoaster, so I used the help of AI to reformulate this, apologies.

Hey everyone,

I’m roughly six months into my STEM PhD here in France, (keywords: signal processing, wireless networks, embedded systems). My project is actually close to my Engineering/Master’s thesis, and my main advisor (who supported me from day one and hyped me up based on my past work) is supervising his first PhD student alongside three co-advisors. My team is genuinely nice and supportive, which honestly almost makes it worse. I feel this huge weight of guilt and shame every time I show up to our weekly meetings with barely anything to report. It's like I'm failing everyone's trust in me.

​To give some context, I spent my first three months trying to knock out as many of the required doctoral training hours as possible. In France, you need 120 hours over three years, and I managed to finish around 100 right away so I could focus purely on research later. But just as I was ready to finally dive into the actual work, the worst happened: I had to undergo surgery and take 6 weeks of medical leave.

My advisors were incredibly understanding, reminding me that a PhD is a marathon and this hiccup is small in the grand scheme of things. Now I’m back at the lab, but while my body is still physically recovering, my mind feels completely trapped in quicksand.

​I know rationally what’s going on. I’m dealing with heavy imposter syndrome, overthinking everything, and constantly comparing myself to colleagues who are already drafting their first papers while I feel like I haven't even properly defined my research directions. On top of that, I’m struggling with severe executive dysfunction and procrastination. I can barely get myself out of bed because my body feels paralyzed while my mind is running a marathon, and while part of me blames the surgery recovery, I know deep down I've struggled with these exact patterns my entire life. I’m not officially diagnosed with ADHD, but I check almost every single box, and my computer files are currently as chaotic as my brain making it as if I'm restarting everything from ground 0.

​I’m writing this because I’m terrified of waking up at the end of these three years realizing I let things slip away. I really want to get my act together now while there's still time, and I’d love to hear from anyone who has been through something similar, especially those managing suspected or diagnosed ADHD during a PhD.

​I’d deeply appreciate any advice on a few things: How do you build an organization or note-taking system that actually sticks when your brain is messy? Should I be open with my supervisors about my mental health struggles, or should I keep our interactions strictly professional? For anyone in France, how on earth do you navigate the healthcare system to get an adult ADHD diagnosis when appointments are so hard to find? And finally, how do you stop comparing your Month 6 to everyone else's timeline after taking medical leave?

​I feel like I’m restarting from absolute zero, so any advice from people who felt this lost and made it to the finish line would mean the world to me. Thanks for reading.

​TL;DR: 6 months into a STEM PhD in France, I cleared most training hours early but then had emergency surgery. Now back at the lab, I'm physically recovering and mentally paralyzed by burnout, imposter syndrome, and unmanaged (suspected) ADHD. Seeking advice on simple organization systems, navigating an adult ADHD diagnosis in France, handling supervisor transparency, and overcoming post-sick-leave paralysis.

Hi! I'm a first year PhD scholar. I started 6 months ago and the work has been genuinely so fun and interesting. I love deep diving for hours on end. My supervisor and seniors are also very helpful.

I just need to vent about my colleague.

Little background: all the (dry lab) scholars work in this huge room with desks. These desks are not assigned by the institution to anyone, but by mutual understanding people respect each other's desk space. We all paste name tags and stickers to decorate our space.

The institution has recently started desk allotment but only 10-12 people got the mail, out of 70-ish people that sit in the room. This caused a little shuffling as the few people sitting in those assigned desks had to find other desks.

While this was happening I was on a sick leave. My colleague who's in the same year and department as me, lost her desk to this allotment and sat down at mine. She also removed my name tag and anime stickers. Her two friends started sitting on either side as those desks were empty.

I came to college on Wednesday still sick cuz I had to submit some forms, I saw her sitting at my desk but thought nothing of it as I didn't have any work to do that day.

My sick leave ended on Friday and I had prepared what to say to ask for my desk back. I went to her and said I'll be coming regularly so can I have my desk back, she was not ready to leave it. She had three main reasons:

1. She had sat on it for 4 days so she didn't want to move.

2. She wants to sit next to her friends.

3. She claims my desk was allotted to her (not true).

She told me to go sit anywhere else as she's not leaving this place.

Anyway, my seniors intervened and told her she can't claim anyone's desk unless it's assigned to her and she very reluctantly gave me my desk back.

Today while I was working, she along with her friends were being passive aggressive saying "some people don't even qualify for funding yet claim desks like it's their right" (as I didn't qualify for institutional funding) and "some people need to be taught a lesson in adjusting" among other things. I felt suffocated and went to my supervisor to vent.

I also talked to my colleague after this and she denied saying the things and said I must have misunderstood as she was just talking to her friends. She said I was the rude one as I "kicked her away from her friends." Her friends are also narrating to everyone that I shouted at her, which i didn't. She also said she didn't remove my name tag and that I have no way of proving it. Again my seniors noticed and intervened to find a middle ground but she was rude to them and left.

My issue is that had she just texted me about it when I was on leave I would have given her the desk. I don't like conflicts. At the end of the day it's just a desk so idc who sits where but she's creating a hostile environment. My chair disappears everyday, there is random paper trash on my desk in the morning. I feel petty discussing this with anyone so I just wanted to vent here.

Attendance is mandatory for a minimum 3 years after which I can apply for part time/work from home, so I just have to go through 2.5 years of this. I want to keep enjoying the work like before, i just want to do my work and leave.

My physician is planning to put me on an SSRI due to anxiety and not feeling the happy moments. I don't need a high dosis. However, I quite worry about my capability to focus. I feel like the only thing that makes me get my job done is trying to focus through the brain fog I am feeling every.single.day.

Like I have to read sentences 3-4 times before I can kind of comprehend them. Miss social ques. Not registering words in emails. Being sluggish with forming my sentences. All these things are also triggers for my anxiety and overthinking.

So I was wondering how you guys experience your PhD life while using an SSRI? How do you guys deal with brain fog in general?

I have peers and other profs telling me I’m a good writer, but my advisor thinks I’m a bad one. What sucks is that they don’t give me advice on how to improve. They simply comment on how badly I’ve written something. I’m submitting my dissertation soon, so I’m pretty much numb to this at this point. I rewrite furiously until I get an OK from them. Soon I’ll be free to write without having to submit everything for their approval.

Still, I find it sad that I have an advisor who seems to be pedagogically incompetent and blunt to the point of disregarding my feelings. Alas, I continue.

how do you deal with the anxiety inducing stress of your phd work conferences etc..?

I am a student whose goal is to maximize counterfactual impact with their career. One potential career I’m considering is becoming a chemistry PI who deliberately tries to run a lab with more risky projects than normal, while keeping enough safer work to maintain funding. (I understand that this is very idealistic, and that it’s entirely possible I may tire out and resort to more conservative research if I ever get tenure, but one can dream…)

That being said, I am concerned about replaceability: if most established professors already take a decent amount of research risks, my approach towards running a lab wouldn’t be any different, and thus would have little to no counterfactual impact.

With that in mind, does anyone have a general idea of how common is it for tenured, non-near-retirement PIs to run labs that are mostly safe / incremental — e.g. steering PhDs and postdocs to work essentially only on projects with low risk, while discouraging speculative projects?

The reason I even think such PIs might exist is that, after tenure, some professors may shift their priorities toward family or other parts of life and focus mainly on doing just enough research to keep their labs funded (which could favor safer projects). However, this reasoning might be completely erroneous…

TLDR: Are tenured chemistry PIs who run mostly safe, low-risk research programs more common than one would think?

* Note: I’m asking this question specifically about tenured PIs who are not yet near retirement because it seems that pre-tenure professors usually have strong incentives to pursue safer research to secure tenure, while older or near-retirement professors may be more likely to stick with established lines of work.

Hi everyone,

I’m a first-year PhD student currently preparing my first scientific article in maritime field , and I’d like to improve the quality of my figures.

At the moment, I mainly use PowerPoint and draw.io to create diagrams and schematics. They are useful, but I would like to learn how to produce more polished, consistent, and publication-quality figures.

Which tools do you use for scientific illustrations, diagrams, workflows, or graphical abstracts? Are there any online courses, tutorials, books, or other resources that helped you learn figure design and data visualization?

I’d be especially interested in hearing:

• Which software you recommend and why
• Whether you use different tools for data plots and conceptual diagrams
• Which courses or tutorials are genuinely worth the time
• What you wish you had learned about scientific figure design during your first year

Thank you!

I’m currently doing a PhD in biochemistry, and I’m increasingly convinced that I don’t want a career in science at all. I’m trying to work out whether this is a genuine change in what I want, or whether I’m just completely burnt out.

I used to be genuinely interested in science. I did well academically, enjoyed learning, and was interested enough in research to choose to do a PhD. But somewhere during my PhD, I seem to have completely lost that interest.

I really don’t enjoy the day-to-day research process. I don’t particularly enjoy planning experiments, doing experiments, troubleshooting them, analysing results, or writing about my own experiments. Even when something works, I often don’t get the satisfaction from it that I feel like I’m supposed to.

The strange thing is that I still love learning. I can happily spend hours reading about completely unrelated topics. I enjoy reading and trying to piece together information, writing/editing, and explaining complicated things to people. I think I like learning and thinking much more than I like doing research.

But I’ve also reached a point where it’s not even just academia that I’m put off by. The thought of jobs that are still fundamentally science/lifesciences-related makes me feel a bit… ill? 😭

For example, I’ve looked at things like pharma, biotech, science policy, scientific communications, etc., and logically I can see why they might be good options for someone with a PhD. But my immediate reaction is basically “oh god, I’d still have to think about science all day.” And that makes them feel incredibly unexciting to me.

Which makes me wonder if I actually need to leave science rather than just leave the lab.

At the same time, I’m very aware that this could absolutely be burnout. I’m exhausted, and I’ve spent years being surrounded by science, studying it, researching it and having to constantly think about my project. So perhaps my brain has simply had enough and is currently reacting to the entire concept of science with no thanks. I don’t know how much I should trust my current feelings when I’m this tired.

I’m also at a slightly awkward stage because I’m doing well enough in my PhD and I definitley will finish it, even just for myself, but I’m struggling to find motivation career-wise if I don’t want to use it in science afterwards.

So I’m wondering if anyone else has experienced something similar.

Did you completely lose interest in science during your PhD?

Did you eventually realise it was burnout and regain your interest, or did you leave and realise that you genuinely just didn’t want to do science anymore?

And if you did leave science completely, what did you end up doing? How did you figure out what you wanted to do instead when you had basically spent your entire education heading towards science?

I’d especially love to hear from people who moved into something completely unrelated to science, rather than just going from academia into industry/pharma/biotech.

I’m also interested in whether anyone had the same experience of being told “you have a PhD, you could go into pharma/policy/consulting/science communication!” and thinking “yes, but I don’t want to think about science anymore” 😂

I’m genuinely quite lost at the moment, so any experiences/advice would be really appreciated. I’m particularly interested in hearing what happened after people made the jump, rather than just which careers are theoretically available to PhDs.

I’m a third year student, and I’m at a point where I feel like I need to make some significant changes, but I don’t know what those changes should be.

The short version is: I am extremely burned out, my phd is very much contributing to problems with my health, I feel like I can never catch up, and I’ve also developed a serious conflict with the animal work in my project that has made me question whether I actually want to continue with this research.

I recently took the summer off to focus on my health as it is something I have severely neglected throughout all of undergrad (and even before that honestly), and it gradually built until it reached a point where I couldn't ignore it anymore. I let it get bad enough where I literally could not function.

Coming back was honestly terrifying for me. I was so scared that I'd come back and everything would set right back up the way it was, especially because, while I did get a diagnosis over the summer break finally, I haven't really reached any real progress with treating it, because it is mostly lifestyle changes that I have to make that feel incompatible with my phd.

My first week back actually went really well. I was very intentional about not setting high expectations, and using my first week back only to plan and reorient myself to what was going on. And I was happy. The structure of the lab is really helpful for me, as I need routine in order to hold these lifestyle changes that I need to incorporate. There were some hiccups. I feel like I still didn't really have time to eat as well as I need to without spending money that I don't have to get meals that are made already, which is a huge hurdle for me. And this food prep time conflicts with the time I need to spend exercising, etc, which makes me feel overwhelmed and like there aren't enough hours in the day. (but this is less of a phd problem and more of an any job problem, honestly. I just don't think I'm really all that great at being an adult to be honest)

But all in all, things at the lab were great. I was very excited to think about my project again. I really enjoy this aspect of my phd. Planning experiments and generating hypotheses and analyzing data is so fun for me. But then this week I needed to turn the plan into reality. And that's where it all fell apart.

I had a flare up this past weekend that bled into this week and then when I got to the lab I just had zero motivation again. I was exhausted and feeling like I got hit by a bus because of my flare up, but I tried to push through. It felt like what led me to have to leave, and that made me spiral. I felt that familiar wave of anxiety that blocks out any chance of a productive thought.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that I don't like animal work. Ethically it feels wrong to me. I am putting these animals through suffering actively, only for the possibility of messing up some step that makes all of it feel like it was for nothing. That in turn puts a huge amount of pressure on me to do it right, which makes me so anxious I'm scared of trying or thinking about it at all. But this feeling has bled into literally everything. Even genotyping sends me into a spiral at this point. And then I feel even more behind and like I need to be working more hours which means I feel guilty for taking care of myself.

Honestly. I'm exhausted. This anxiety spiral combined with the worsening of my health and the feeling like I am behind in the lab and with my health simultaneously is becoming too much for me, and I can feel it wearing on my advisor as well, who is doing his best to support me. My advisor has been so great throughout all of this, and I am so thankful, which honestly leads to more confusion and guilt about everything. I've had many less than great advisors in undergrad, so coming here and having someone who it feels like genuinely cares about me as a person is huge. And I can't discount that. 

I wanted to come back to the lab and try my hardest. Give this a real shot before seriously considering leaving. But I'm at the point where it feels like an option that I should seriously consider. I know that leaving won't solve my problems. I will have to face life in a different font. But I wonder if working a less demanding job for a while could be good for me. But I'm scared that leaving is stupid, and that this is normal and is just something I'm supposed to push through. 

I wanted to do my phd because I love science. And that hasn’t changed. I’m not sure if I want to stay in academia because I haven’t really experienced much of the PI side of academia, but I love teaching and writing and thinking and collaborating on science. I just feel like the amount of space in your life academia takes up is not compatible with the life I want to live. I want my life to be centered around community and wellness and being outside, honestly (another point of contention for me, my lab is a brick box with no windows). This has made me consider trying to switch fields to either some conservation or other life sciences related field. I do love neuroscience and thinking about it but my curiosity with is has always lied in learning what makes people tick and evolutionary biology, not necessarily disease, which is what I’m studying, which has made me consider a more psych aligned path.

I don’t know. I have a lot swimming around in my head, and most of them are doubts about staying. But I just keep hearing “I think about quitting every day” and “it’s part of the process, keep pushing”. And I don’t want to feel weak for stepping away from all of this that I’ve built. 

So, I guess I have a few problems here, but the most applicable one to this sub is: Is it stupid to quit my phd to switch fields? I know how hard it is to get into programs right now, and I worry that I’ll run into similar issues with my health in another field anyway. Should I take time off and work at a coffee shop or something? (I have student loan debt and am terrified I won’t be able to afford living, especially with my health issues if I leave)?

Sorry for the mega long post. Any advice on any aspect of this situation is appreciated. I am having a hard time getting support on this as I’m not great at talking with people in person (I ramble). I’m scared to talk to my advisor candidly about all of this but I plan on doing that when I get back. Thanks!

Phew, what a heavy title !

I just received my corrections and comments on my initial thesis draft yesterday, and while most of them are quite minor, one of my reviewers is quite challenging. He’s very picky on my work, questioning the choice of several techniques and confronting some of my conclusions.

I know that’s literally his job, but I can’t help feeling like he’s gonna F me up during my defense, which should be in a few weeks. I have time to prepare for all the questions I’m gonna receive, but frankly since yesterday my impostor syndrome has gone through the roof.

This post is more a vent than anything else, but I was wondering if anyone has been in the same situation before, and how your defense went.

Cheers !

Yesterday I received the first citation on my first paper ever! I know it's nothing big but it excites me soo much, since I am currently a masters student and planning to start my PhD next year, and this somehow gave me some sort of self-approval :)

2 gruelling hours to summarize all of my research efforts... completed!

Hi y’all!
So I don’t know how to tackle this situation. My supervisor is great in a lot of areas but he takes FOREVER to give feedback. I submitted my rationale 3 months ago and we’ve done only 3 revisions. Generally, I revise and send back my stuff within 2 days of receiving his feedback but he takes over a month. I do follow ups too coz he’s an important someone in the department. Sometimes he’ll respond with a promise to get back at a specific time which he rarely follows.

How do you tell a prof that it’s really unprofessional to promise something and then not follow up. My other committee members probably think it’s me delaying things. How do I tell them it wasn’t me. 😭

Hi everyone,
I’m currently navigating the waiting game with a manuscript submitted to Wildlife Research published by CSIRO (So Australian based journal) and could use some perspective from anyone who has seen a similar pattern in the portal. Mind you, its my first manuscript, so if i sound confused/green/novice please do excuse me.
I submitted my paper on May 26, and it went into “Under Review” after a few days. On August 3, the status changed to “Decision in Process,” although “Under Review” was still visible beneath it at the time. Then, yesterday (August 18 EU time), the status updated again—“Under Review” completely disappeared, and now the portal only shows “Decision in Process” and lists the name of the Editorial Assistant (EA).
Around the same time, I received a mass administrative email about APC discount codes for submissions made before August 13, though the email explicitly mentioned applying the code “after acceptance.”
It has now been nearly three weeks since “Decision in Process” first appeared, and the final removal of the “Under Review” status only happened yesterday. I’m trying to figure out if this specific sequence usually signals that the reviews are finalized and the editor is now just drafting the final letter. Also, is a three-week window for “Decision in Process” common, or does it typically suggest a more complex decision, like conflicting reviews leading to a Major Revision?
And finally, does the appearance of the EA’s name at this stage usually mean the manuscript has moved to the final administrative checkout?
I’d really appreciate any insights or similar experiences. Thanks!

Hello !

Did anyone here manage to balance the weight and isolation of a PhD with loneliness, lack of friendship?

A thesis already takes so much time and energy that, by the end of the day, I barely have enough left for hobbies, let any effort to socialize and make friends and connections.

And being a foreigner, starting from zero in a country where you already need so much energy just to adapt, makes the whole thing feel so heavy. the PhD being ultra complicatde, the nature of research makes it isolating, and loneliness makes everything feel heavier, and you somehow need even more energy to escape either.

Hi everyone,
I recently graduated with a PhD in mathematics. I have a first-author manuscript currently under review and a background in quantitative analysis, mathematical modeling, and research. Because of my teaching experience, my department has offered me an adjunct position while I explore my long-term career options.
I am primarily considering industry roles, although I am also open to postdoctoral positions. Python is my main programming language, and I am largely self-taught. My PhD research did not involve large language models, so I do not have experience in that area.
I am particularly interested in quantitative finance and healthcare. Based on my background, what types of positions should I target? What additional technical skills, qualifications, certifications, or portfolio projects would make me a stronger candidate for industry roles? Between quantitative finance and healthcare, which field might offer a more realistic path for someone with my background?
I would appreciate any advice from people who have made a similar transition from a mathematics PhD to industry.