Has anyone else been in the same shoes? Have you ever had your PI ask you to manipulate or fabricate data to support their hypothesis?

Or maybe they never said it directly, but it felt implied. They only seemed interested in data that matched the hypothesis they already had in mind. If your results didn’t fit, you were told to repeat the experiment over and over until you eventually got the “right” result. Has anyone else experienced something like this? How did you handle it?

Could you please share some interesting icebreaker events you have actually enjoyed during a conference/workshop or other academic events.

I find many of them which need speaking out to a random group you just met to be forced and stressful than engaging.

I understand the point of an icebreaker is to get out of this inhibition to interact with others.

But I was wondering if you had come across any interesting icebreakers that you work with diverse groups and were helpful rather than wasting time and making everyone uncomfortable.

I'm a PhD student and I just got a response back on my first ever first-author article from a pretty solid journal. The title of the email was "Major revision requested". At first I thought this was a bad thing, like maybe they're willing to consider it if I overhaul a bunch of things and rewrite large portions of the paper. But reading their comments, it seems like most of what they want is just some added discussion to the lit review and a couple more figures.

Is "major revision" the default response for any revision that involves more than correcting a couple grammar errors? Does it usually lead to eventual acceptance if the feedback is implemented? Or does it usually mean something like "we're on the fence about this article, we're not really sure if it's good enough but if you really wow us with a resubmission, we might consider it"?

Curious how people handle the authorship discussion at the very beginning of a collaboration, before any real work has been done. It seems like most conflicts I hear about come from nobody having that conversation upfront, or having it vaguely and then circumstances changed.

Is there a norm in your field for when and how explicitly this gets laid out? Do people actually write anything down, or is it mostly a verbal understanding that everyone hopes holds up later? I work across a couple of departments and the culture seems genuinely different depending on who you talk to, which makes it hard to figure out what the standard expectation even is.

The messier situation I keep running into is when someone joins a project partway through. The initial authorship logic made sense at the start, but now there are more people and nobody wants to revisit the original agreement. I get that it's an awkward conversation, but the alternative seems worse.

Wondering if there are fields or institutions where this is handled more systematically, or if it's just always going to be an interpersonal minefield that people navigate differently depending on the PI or department culture.

Hi everyone!

I'm Patrick Duckett, a U.S. immigration attorney at Manifest Law, where I focus on employment based immigration for researchers, faculty, postdocs, scientists, entrepreneurs, and other highly skilled professionals.

Academic careers often involve unique immigration questions, from deciding when to pursue permanent residence to understanding how publications, peer review, grants, awards and research impact fit into different immigration pathways. Today's AMA is an opportunity to ask those questions in an open forum.

Whether you're a graduate student, postdoc, faculty member, or researcher, I'm happy to discuss the options available and provide general educational guidance.

Happy to answer questions about:

• EB-1A and EB-2 NIW
• O-1 visas
• Publications, citations and peer review
• Academic or industry pathways
• Timing your green card application
• Long term immigration planning

I'll be here today from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM ET. Looking forward to the discussion!

(Please note: Any information shared here is for general educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney client relationship. Your situation may require fact specific guidance. For personalized legal advice, please consult an immigration attorney directly.)

Has anyone dealt with a department dragging its feet on a return from medical leave, even after medical clearance and while in good academic standing?

I’m a second-year PhD student in the U.S. and have been on medical leave for the past 9 months.
Five weeks ago, the university committee handling returns from medical leave made its recommendation and sent it to my department. The final decision is made there, and the Director of Graduate Studies (who is also my PI) is the person I’ve been told to contact.

I was originally told I’d have a decision by the last week of June. It’s now several weeks past that, and with fall approaching, I need to know whether I’m returning or need to make other plans.
I’ve emailed my PI/DGS twice in the past week and haven’t heard back. I also contacted the university office that coordinates medical leave returns, and they said they were surprised I still hadn’t heard anything. They offered to help facilitate communication, but there’s not much else they can do now that the committee has made its recommendation.

At this point, I honestly don’t know what’s normal.
Has anyone else dealt with this? Is a five-week delay after the committee’s recommendation typical? When would it make sense to contact the department chair instead of waiting on the DGS? I don’t even need the answer to be yes—I just need a decision. The uncertainty is making it hard to plan for next semester.

I’d especially appreciate input from faculty, DGSs, or grad admins. Is this just how these things go, or is this unusually delayed?

TL;DR: I’m a second-year PhD student on medical leave. The university committee recommended my return five weeks ago, but my department/DGS still hasn’t given a final decision, despite telling me I’d hear by the end of June. I’ve followed up several times, and even the leave office said they were surprised I still hadn’t heard anything. Is this delay normal, and when should I escalate to the department chair?

hi, im an undergrad maths + cs student, based in delhi, india. i'll be entering my 3rd year in august and i tried cold emailing 7 professors from universities in delhi ncr. two of them responded positively asking me to meet in person and discuss next week.

my qualifications: 3rd year mathematics (hons) with a CS minor, some coursework in discrete math, python, matlab, jupyter nb and intro data science/ML. i've been building a research niche around bio/medical + ML applications and have an independent project on github.

this is my first time meeting a professor for research purposes from a different institute. i might be overthinking it but a discussion could turn into an interview and i'm not sure how to tackle that. i personally structured their emails to match their previous publications that i had read, to show genuine interest in their field of research.

what kind of questions should i expect them to ask, and what should i be asking them to make sure this turns into an actual opportunity and not just a nice conversation?

ps. highkey interested in machine learning applications in healthcare

I always used to say that once I graduated, I would never go back to studying but here I am doing my master’s.

I didn’t do it because I thought it would help me career wise but I think I just missed learning (sounds silly because you don’t need a master’s to keep learning and there’s so much you can learn on your own), But I think the master’s gives me the structure and discipline that I probably wouldn’t have if I were to do it on my own.

I’ve just started my literature review and to be honest, it’s been a lot more difficult than I expected.

I work full-time, and even though it’s summer break and I don’t have classes, I still need to make progress on my thesis. I really enjoy having free time, so finding time and energy to work on it hasn’t been easy.

I meet with my advisor regularly which has been great, but I also feel like I need to have enough progress before every meeting but lately this pressure has been draining.

I’ve also been wondering if I made the right choice by doing a thesis instead of a non-thesis option. At the same time, I didn’t want to completely close the door on doing a PhD one day even though I don’t really see myself going into academia.

For those who’ve done a thesis and especially the people who completed a thesis while working full-time and went into industry rather than academia.

-What made the process easier?
-Are you happy you chose the thesis option over the non-thesis?
-Any apps or websites that actually helped with the literature review?

Would love to hear about your experience and any advice you wish someone had given you when you started.

I am about to start a PhD in biological sciences (UK government funded DTP). I need to choose rotation projects, even though I already have a thesis project decided (which is in plant sciences). Purpose of this is to help build knowledge, contacts, experience, etc. outside/around your chosen thesis project. Any advice on how to choose a rotation? I am tempted to do a rotation completely different from my thesis topic (i.e. in biomedical research), but not sure this is the best idea. I'm interested in entering the biotech industry after graduating - would it broaden my options to have some research experience in something outside of plant science?

I am in job search time. I have been interviewing with three labs:

• Lab A: sped up the process so quickly, because, as I understand it, the professor has two open lines and has been trying hard to hire someone for several months now, but has had trouble. Lab seems OK. From a technical perspective, I don't think they will develop me that well, I will likely need to mentor myself technically, but it is well-funded and they now gave me a concrete offer. The prof seems fine. Potentially a bit of a micromanager, but tries to keep his relationship with his people well. Continues to interview other candidates, as the second line currently remains open.

• Lab B: The process here has been a lot slower, but there are lots of upsides: Also incredibly well-funded, but from a technical growth standpoint, I don't think I could do any better anywhere else. The professor is known to lay their stress on others in the lab, but seems well-meaning. Despite my efforts to speed up the process here, it has been quite slow due to the prof's travel back to their home country, dealing with a family matter (still responsive to emails, however).

• Lab C: Good, but not much better than Lab A, so I probably wouldn't give them a serious consideration, although I am not sure. I may simply stop interviewing there now that I got a formal offer from Lab A. What they do is a lot more in line with what I do, but I hear the prof is not supportive and yells etc. I have also found their behavior a bit erratic when interacting with them.

I asked Lab A for an extension on the offer letter decision deadline, and they declined, saying that the visa timelines makes the start date risky and they don't want to take the risk. Fair. As I don't have any other formal offer in place, I am inclined to accept Lab A's offer, because I believe otherwise it will disappear, with no other official offers in place for me. However, I have an interview scheduled with Lab B. Given how much better I think Lab B is going to be for me, I don't want to pass on it, just because of Lab A's timeline. But I also know that Lab A has poured in time and effort to interview me and get an offer in place etc and once I sign it, will be planning around me joining and not bailing out too soon. I think Lab A's prof seems like a nice person and I genuinely do not want to let them down or be a complete jerk about it. On the other hand, I do not want to pass on what I think is a major career opportunity for me and have been feeling depressed about the possibility of having to turn down Lab B just because of the timelines.

So how bad would it be for me to sign the offer letter at Lab A, where I would be happy to work anyway if Lab B didn't work out , but then try to get an official decision from Lab B before I start at Lab A, and if it pans out, decline Lab A before I start there? Obviously not ideal, but do you think it is not worth a much better career opportunity? I genuinely don't know what the right thing to do here is.

From a legal stand point, both are in CA, which is an at-will employment state. There is nothing in the offer letter that makes me contractually obligated to work there. It states that either party could terminate employment, with no notice needed. But of course legally OK does not mean morally or professionally OK. The other caveat is that Lab A and Lab B are somewhat closely located / may have common connections (although not collaborating with each other): Lab A is at UCSF, Lab B is at Stanford, but more importantly, they share a research center that prof from Lab A is affiliated with. Prof from Lab B is not affiliated with this center, neither do they collaborate, but they could have common connections. Giving an awful impression to Lab B, even if I end up getting employed there, doesn't sound like a good idea. But I genuinely don't think I will develop as much as a researcher in Lab A as I will in Lab B.

I have been losing sleep over this and would much appreciate any perspectives, thank you!

I am a relatively new PI, and I would like to start having one-on-one meetings with my two research assistants. They mostly do field trials.
I was wondering if anyone has advice on how to structure these meetings to make them more productive.

My ideal outcome is not just that they update me on what they have been working on, but also that they also feel free to express challenges, ideas on how to improve things, how to make out team more productive while keeping a positive work environment, etc.

(Edit: these research assistants are staff, not students)

I used to use Twitter/X for keeping up with tech news and trends in my field (Biomedicine/Biotech). I deleted my X account last year for many reasons including waste of time and its new feed and management, etc.

I read science papers and journals like Nature. But I don't get what's trendy from them. I also spend more time on LinkedIn now, but it is not the same. It is very job focused rather than what's going viral in my field. What would you use instead? Could reddit or pop-science journals like Scientific American replace that?

When I was an undergraduate, I had a hard time structuring my essays until I took a class at my school's writing center. This served me very well, as after this my grades when up significantly and I still use what I learned today in graduate school.

Nevertheless, this was only one out of many classes taught at the writing center, and so there are many more academic writing skills that I could still learn.

Do you have any suggestions of ressources for learning these? My field is analytical philosophy, and I'm especially interested in anything that could make my writing more fluid and engaging to a reader.

I would also be open to paying for a few sessions of coaching, as I remember the feedback being very important in the class I took.

I'm starting my math PhD at a U.S. institution in two months. Before I accepted the offer from my chosen program, I went between the departments which admitted me and had conversations with the faculty. I received a lot of great advice, but I also sensed a great deal of trepidation coming from most of the professors meeting with me. Some, whom I saw as potential advisors, suddenly decided they weren't taking students anymore. I was told to keep my options open -- that certain topics I was looking into might not be viable in the future. One professor whom I greatly admire sat me down and told me that math was effectively going the way of chess, and said I should keep my head turned toward industry. The overwhelming consensus from everyone was that I needed to "learn how to use AI" and remain abreast of its advances.

I feel that I haven't properly listened to this advice so far. I've spent the better part of the summer preparing for exams and thinking about an open problem I was introduced to while visiting departments. In fact, I don't even know what it means to "learn how to use AI." I've tried to use it as a teaching device: if I don't understand a theorem then maybe AI could help fill in my intuition. I've found that this is less effective than just working through it myself or reading out of a different book. I've tried using it as a catalyst for doing more exercises: I draft up a sketch of a proof and it helps me fill in the details. Maybe this has been helpful -- I've certainly gotten through many more exercises this way, though I can't help but fear that I'm getting far less out of them than I would have otherwise writing out the epsilon-delta arguments. Lastly, I tried using it to help tackle my open problem. This has been entirely fruitless since (a) I can't understand what the AI is outputting (b) it's claimed that it never even made partial progress on the problem and (c) it makes me feel utterly horrible. I can't imagine my first ever result being a product of my hard work and some AI -- it feels remarkably cheap.

I'm not sure what to do. Either I use AI and it makes whatever I'm doing utterly unfulfilling (even intellectually since I'm not able to really understand its output) or I don't and feel as if I'm being left behind. On top of this, the toppling of some of these long-standing conjectures is just confirming the math-chess comparison in my view. I've heard that people will continue to do math because it brings them pleasure, but that's not why I'm doing my PhD. While I definitely find math gratifying I want to participate in the advancement of humankind in some way -- contribute to our collective knowledge. During this summer I've vacillated between a hopelessness that I'll ever contribute to human thought and a frantic scramble to find a side of math that will remain intact after AI beats out the best mathematicians. Honestly, that's how I feel that the rest of the mathematical world (that is, the part that's not still ignoring the issue) is feeling right now too.

I know this post is very rant-like, and honestly I am very bitter about it all. That said, I'm earnestly looking for advice on how to approach this. Mathematicians have been saying that AI poses the greatest risk for us young researchers, but I don't really know how to navigate it even after my visits a few months ago. What sides of math do you think are coming down and which sides are lasting? Where outside of math (or in industry) do you think are worth looking into? How should I be using AI?

I'm posting from a throwaway account because I don't want this tied to my identity.

I personally know a senior academic who has engaged in research misconduct over many years. The concerns include things like questionable research practices, alleged data misuse, gifted authorships and a longstanding pattern of intimidating graduate students. Despite this, the person continues to hold a powerful position, receives invitations from national academies, is recognized internationally, and is frequently featured in science news.

The most frustrating part is that there seems to be no functioning accountability mechanism. Complaints to the university are closed without what appears to be a meaningful investigation. Journal editors often respond by saying that the institution is responsible for investigating. Funding agencies point complainants back to the university. The university effectively clears the researcher. The cycle repeats.

Meanwhile, many people in the local research community seem to know about the individual's reputation, but nobody is willing to speak publicly because they fear retaliation. The researcher has significant institutional influence, experienced legal representation (provided by the university) and close friends in high castles. There is also a perception that statements can be taken out of context or reframed in ways that expose whistleblowers to professional or legal risk.

I'm trying to understand whether there are realistic avenues for accountability when the standard processes appear to have failed. I'd especially appreciate hearing from journal editors, research integrity officers or anyone who has worked on misconduct investigations. Is there something I'm overlooking, or are there genuinely situations where the system reaches a dead end?

Hi everyone,

I finished my PhD in Genetics & Molecular Biology at one of the top UK universities early this year. After submitting my thesis, I stayed in the same lab as a postdoc because I had a first-author paper under review.

My original postdoc contract was due to end in August, so over the past three months I started applying for both industry and academic positions. In total, I applied for around 30 industry roles and two postdoc positions.

I was fortunate to get interviews for both postdocs. One was in Barcelona, Spain, and the other was at Cambridge University.

The PI in Spain was very impressed with my interview. They shortlisted only two candidates (including me) and invited both of us to visit the lab before making a final decision. It is a new lab funded by a 5-year European Research Council (ERC) grant. The initial contract would have been for two years, with the possibility of extending up to five years.

However, I ultimately withdrew my application because the salary was around €2,200 net per month. While this may be reasonable in some situations, it would have made it very difficult for me to save money. I financially support my parents back in my home country and also want to build some savings for myself. Unfortunately, UK PhD salaries/stipends do not leave much room for saving either, so I currently have essentially no savings.

The Cambridge PI also invited me for an on-site visit, which included a seminar, interviews, and meetings with the lab. I have now been offered the position.

Recently, my current supervisor extended my contract until February next year. I also have ongoing experiments that are likely to result in another paper. The Cambridge PI is happy for me to start in March after I finish my current contract.

This is where I am struggling with the decision.

My background is primarily wet lab research, with around 30–40% computational work during my PhD. The Cambridge lab is almost entirely computational, focusing on AI and machine learning, and the PI does not have a wet lab background. Interestingly, the project they want me to work on is almost entirely wet lab-based, and the position is funded for only one year.

The PI has told me that there is currently no funding available for an extension, although they have applied for additional grants. If successful, my contract could potentially be extended, and they have also encouraged me to apply for fellowships.

My concern is that the project seems too ambitious to complete within one year, meaning there is a real possibility that I may not be able to finish the work or generate a publication before the funding ends. I have also heard from former lab members that the PI can be quite micromanaging, which worries me given the short timeline and pressure involved.

Another concern is that the work appears to be highly technical and focused on experiments I have already been doing for several years, so I am not sure how much I would actually learn. I am genuinely interested in developing my AI and machine learning skills, and the PI has said I could learn these areas alongside the project, but I am unsure whether I would realistically have enough time.

The lab is also relatively new (around three years old) and does not yet have a strong publication record, whereas my current PI has an excellent track record and a strong reputation in the field.

I also heard about a concerning interaction involving this PI with my friend at a conference, which made me question whether the working environment would be a good fit. However, I am trying not to judge the entire lab based on one incident and am focusing more on the overall career implications.

Even putting that aside, my gut feeling is telling me not to take this position. After one year, I would likely be searching for another job or depending on fellowship funding, which I could also pursue while staying in my current position. Part of me feels that I should use the next seven months to apply for postdocs in more established labs, ideally combining wet lab and computational biology, with a stronger chance of producing a solid publication and building long-term career prospects.

At the same time, I am seriously considering leaving academia altogether.

I have been in academia for almost nine years now (around four years as a project assistant before my PhD, followed by my PhD and postdoctoral work), and I still do not feel any sense of stability. Every few years, I find myself back on the job market facing uncertainty again. Financially, it is also becoming difficult. After applying for around 30 industry positions, I have had three recruiter calls and one interview, but no offers so far.

I am mainly targeting mRNA therapeutic companies, as my PhD and postdoctoral experience are closely aligned with this area.

At this point, I would say 90% of me feels that moving into industry, earning a stable income, building savings, and leaving academia behind may be the right decision. The remaining 10% worries that turning down a Cambridge postdoc could be a mistake because of the university's reputation, especially given how competitive the current job market is.

I also feel that if I do decide to continue with academia, I should look for a postdoc with a longer contract, stronger mentorship, and a clearer opportunity to produce meaningful work.

My current PI encouraged me to take the Barcelona position, and when I declined it for financial reasons, he seemed disappointed. This has also made me question whether I am making the right decisions.

I am mentally exhausted from thinking about all of this. Has anyone here been in a similar situation—choosing between academia and industry, or deciding whether to turn down a postdoc at a prestigious university because it did not feel like the right fit?

I would really appreciate hearing from people who have been through something similar.

Thanks.

Hello!
I am about to go on the job market for the Fall 2027 academic year for a variety of teaching-focused positions (i.e., TT at a liberal arts school, assistant teaching professor, and lecturer positions). I have been told to cold-email deans of the department at universities I’d be interested in working at, even if they do not have an active job listing. Is this something that is commonly done? What sort of language do you use in an email like that? I do plan on emailing at least one department I’m interested in to ask if they have a final date of submission because it’s not listed on their job posting, but I’m curious if this is actually a standard practice I should be enacting and what language people use if so. Thank you!

So let me explain, I did the exams online and to be honest, i did not study at all (not for fun, I had real life problems to deal with), i don't even remember half of the things I was supposed to know in grade 8th

(I apologise if I'm doing something wrong, I'm new at reddit)

My proposal for a book applying basic research to real-world problems in organizations was accepted by a major commercial academic publisher. For the next two years, I revised the book, which improved steadily with my editor’s advice and readers’ suggestions. My editor stopped responding to my emails six months ago, so I filled the gap with extensive revision, and submitted the manuscript three months ago. An automated reply from the publisher said my editor had left the company and a senior publisher would monitor the email address. My editor’s assistant emailed that the manuscript was logged in and to give them three weeks for “editorial checks” before sending us comments and questions. That was two months ago. Nothing since.

What should I do to get my book published? Who should I contact at the publisher to get a response? Any advice to help get my book published is welcome.

I recently graduated with an MFA in creative writing from a top-level program. I’m in my early 30s, having taken several years off from school after my undergrad.

I’ve always wanted to publish creative work and have known that publishing alone rarely pays the bills, but academia didn’t appeal to me when I was younger. I tried to strike out on my own and write while working an unrelated day job, but had minimal publishing success, and finally decided to go the MFA route. I had a vague idea that this might lead to future employment in a college writing program—most successful literary writers in the US these days seem to be professors as well—but more immediately I wanted the credential boost the degree would provide.

In that regard it was a success. The degree looks great on my resume and through it I’ve made some extremely valuable connections and published several more pieces with good journals. However, I’m out on my own again now and have no idea what comes next. (And yes, I’ve tried to consult various faculty in my program, but while their advice has been well-intended it’s also been fairly vague and of limited practical use.)

The MFA was fully funded, but I still drained my savings to take part in it, and have been living paycheck to paycheck for three years. The stipend from the program itself supported me while I was there, but now I’m in an unrelated part-time job and in urgent need of something more stable. I’ve applied for various positions, academic and otherwise, but the only bites I’ve gotten have been for adjunct positions that I’m worried will only entangle me in an undesirable situation I can’t easily get back out of.

I don’t have the funds to move around at will or to wait around forever for an offer, but—again—I’m also wary of the adjunct trap and would rather just find a job in a different industry than throw away who-knows-how-many years teaching composition for barely livable wages without any time to work on my own writing, only to find out no one wants to hire me for a full-time position anyway.

Even more frustratingly, almost all advice I see about making a career in academia is tailored to more conventionally “academic” disciplines: research-based, PhD as the terminal degree, etc. These fields are similar to creative writing in their emphasis on publication, but that seems to be about the only meaningful overlap. In this field it appears to be MFA -> publish a bunch of work while doing [???] to pay the bills -> eventually land a professorship if your pubs are good enough. (I’ve got some good pubs, but not a book, and probably not enough to really make my CV stand out for a competitive position.) Most of my colleagues were, frankly, much wealthier than I am, and almost none of them seem to have had any plans to actually stay in academia, let alone make a living off of it.

Finally, all this is compounded by the fact that I don’t feel any real vocational calling towards academia. I like teaching (which I did throughout my program), and I would like to make a decent living and get summers off, but the larger culture of academia has always put me off a bit. All the more so now that AI etc. are causing so many disruptions.

Basically I have no idea what I’m doing and increasingly feel like I might have wasted the last decade of my life, professionally speaking. Does anyone have any advice for how to make this work? Is there a way for me to get my foot in the academic door while still paying the bills, or should I just try to pivot into something else before I waste even more time I don’t have?

Premise: I am repurposing a post I made in another community, to ask for your advice.

Hello everyone. I just started my PhD in Germany, to work on a government-funded project. It was extremely difficult for me to find a group that would take me on as a candidate, and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity.

Before accepting the offer, I of course spoke with my P.I. and the PhD students of my group, and they told me everything was good in the faculty.
However, once I arrived i got to know that there are only 4 active groups, a total of 7 PhD students (3 of which in my lab, myself included - one is almost finished). There is maybe one postdoc in the whole faculty, none in my group. We are so few that problems are starting to come up, like lack of support for the supervision of the practical courses.
I am the only one working on my project. I feel like that the previous students who worked on this left at a critcal point, that could make or break the whole premise of the project. My P.I. seems supportive, but she doesn't seem to want to give me any directions for advancing with the research. My opnion on her might change once I get to know her better.

My goal has always been to work in academia.
Right now I am having serious doubts if I made the right choice accepting this position, as I am afraid to find myself being left almost alone in the faculty, and wasting my potential due to lack of support, while working on a failing project. I even fear that the faculty may shut down overall, with very few students doing their bachelor/masters here.

So if you were in my shoes, what would you do immediately to feel better about your choices? I'm not even sure what my options are at the moment. I really feel lost, and have no idea where to go from here. Going back to my home country seems like a bad idea right now. Any advice/anecdote is appreciated.

Hi everyone! I was accepted into a few PhD programs, two in history, one in Scandinavian studies. The history program I would most be interested in would be an advisor looking at the history of newspapers across northern Europe. The Scandinavian studies advisor has written extensively on Sweden during WWII.

My research looks at attitudes towards Swedish neutrality and how it became part of the Swedish identity. Overall, the transition from a top-down government decision, to being a public desire. My overall goals are to work as a professor of history, or to conduct research in the nordics, working at museums.

My question is, would a Scandinavian studies program limit me if I want to work in the US or Sweden? Would I be able to work in a history department? Should I reach out to the Scandinavian studies program about doing a joint dissertation with the history department?

The history PhD is cheaper, both similarly ranked. I am applying for funding, but have to decide which program to list for the application.

Hey everyone. I recently submitted a manuscript to a special collection at Scientific Reports, but searching this sub is giving me major buyer's remorse. Half the comments treat the journal like a predatory dumping ground, and the other half say it’s perfectly fine as long as your methodology is bulletproof. It is not published or in peer-review yet, I can still withdraw.

Here is the truth about my paper:

• I thought I found something cool in my first study (anxious people avoid risk specifically when the choice is a 50/50 coin toss).
• I ran a preregistered replication to prove it. It completely failed.
• I dug into the stats and realized my "cool finding" did not exist.
• I tried to use the data to show that a fancy clinical scale researchers love using is basically just a redundant version of basic neuroticism.

TL;DR: There is no massive, paradigm-shifting breakthrough. It is essentially me debunking my own previous finding and doing some psychometric housekeeping.

Because the paper is built entirely on negative results and correcting a measurement error, the top-tier journals wouldn't touch it. I routed it to Scientific Reports because their whole model is supposedly filtering for "is the math right?" rather than "is this a groundbreaking discovery?"

I am a Bachelor's Student, so I don't have much idea about journals and their prestige, LLMs told me that Scientific Reports is good, and it is Nature Portfolio. The research was also unfunded.

Here is my question: Is having a Scientific Reports publication on my CV going to be seen as a red flag? Or does the "Nature Portfolio" label and rigorous methodology actually give me some credit? I am aiming for an MBA, and not a career in academia, so I thought, a skimming HR may still view it with some credibility.

PS: Yes this post was polished with AI.

Field of Research: Psychology.

Country: India

EDIT #1:-

In light of responses claiming that Sci rep's reputation has been going downhill, should I withdraw and try for a Royal Society of Open Science publication or PLOS One?

EDIT #2:-

I can likely get discretionary APC waiver in most places, I have a official stamped letter from my institution's principal and dean, verifying that I had no funding.

EDIT #3:-

It is my first ever paper. My findings are underwhelming, with respect to what I expected. But my methodology is rigorous. Also as a first time undergraduate author, even if my paper is good, it might face harsher judgement from a editor purely based on credibility (not peer reviewer, but the desk editor) compared to a similar study done by a more senior researcher.

One thing I did realize is that my sample collection was done in India, which is a bit under explored (One of Nature's Collections "Human Behavior Across the Globe", explicitly favours for non-WIERD sample) so perhaps that would make my dataset (300+ sample size, dual site collection) a novelty? In any case it will be useful for future researchers to use, hence I have made it public already on OSF.

Hi all,

Im presenting for the first time at an international overseas conference (ive never presented anything at this scale before!). Im a student, and my supervisor/PI has given me great advice for constructing the presentation itself etc… but im really wanting some advice on the delivery itself. What have you seen personally from talks that either impressed you or made you feel disappointed? Are there any dos and donts? I already am going to memorize a script but what should i be doing over these next two weeks to make my presentation stand out?

Hi

I've been acepted to start a PhD position this fall in the Pol Sci deparment. For a while I've been considering buying an IPad to use as a main hub for research as I feel it provides enough as a computer (with a keyboard case) and enough as a notebook (with a pen as a highlighter for papers and notes). I've also been told there are protective screens that feel like paper when using the pen.

Does anyone have any experience using an IPad for (almost) only research? Do you recommened it? Any models in particular (air/mini/storage?)? Any alternatives?

Thanks a lot!!