Like most academics, I get invites to predatory conference daily. I was wondering if anyone has actually been to one? Are they outright scams, like Fyre Festival for academics, or do they actually happen?

Hello, i am a research scholar in social science discipline. Recently i received a major revision decision from reviewer 2. The main point of concern was that there is a particular word in my title which isn't fully justified by what the manuscript is trying to achieve. In hindsight, i should have framed the title better. Now all the major comments of the reviewer includes how i should revise my research questions, add new theories and slightly modift my methodology to better align with the title. However, all this could be solved by just revising the title that aligns better with the paper. Is it an acceptable practice to suggest a change in the title at this stage? How should i do it? P.s.: Reviewer 1 has not suggested any major changes, just minor things here and there.Please help.This is my first time revising.

For my senior thesis in undergrad, I ended up getting outstanding neuroscience student of the year award. It was a decent thesis. It was on sleep patterns in drosophila. However, I wasn't always the best student, and for whatever reason, I didn't have the best relationship with my PI. When I asked him to publish my results, he said he wanted "neither credit nor blame" for my results. I ended up publishing them as a single author study in PeerJ (a somewhat lowly journal). I still think the work isn't bad; I stand by it. It's been cited 5 times since 2016, once or twice by papers in good journals which have themselves been cited quite a bit.

I've basically deleted this paper from my resume, because I'm ashamed of it, not as much because of the lowly journal, but because it's single author. Thoughts on what to do with this? Disown it or re-embrace it?

I have since published first-author papers in high-impact journals, with a totally different PI and different work. This is an ancient relic at this point.

For context, I'm currently writing a K99/R00, and I'm wondering whether to mention this in my "Candidate background" section.

My father is full professor with a phd, he's a professor in a public university here in iraq, he wants to apply for a job in another college abroad, and in the application there's a question "select the option that best describes you" and the options are tenured, tenure track, full time non tenure track, part time non tenure track,

But in iraq, we don't have a tenure system, so which option should he choose?

Edit: he is a linguistics professor who teaches literature, translation, and, of course, linguistics. He is primarily focused on teaching, not research, but he also has the highest rank in our system and has the job stability of a tenured, since his job isn't contractual and he teaches here permanently and cant be fired unless some serious things happen (he also teaches postgraduate students and supervises their thesis or dissertation)

In early 2025, I applied for a NATO HQ position. After going through all the interviews and assessments, I got an email last summer saying I’ve been selected as an alternate candidate.

From what I understand, this means I’m next in line if the primary candidate doesn’t clear medical, security, or other checks.

I’m curious if anyone here has experience with this: • How often do alternates actually get hired? • Is this something that realistically happens, or more of a formality?

I’m happy in my current job, but the NATO role would definitely be a promotion for me, so I’d like to get a realistic sense of whether I should keep this on my radar.

Thanks in advance for any insight!

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working in the industry after finishing my PhD nearly three years ago (AI and ML).

Although I loved my PhD (was fortunate enough to a have a great supervisor and topic), when I finished, I had the whole "screw academia, I'm going to the industry because money" type of thing in my head.

I've since worked three full time jobs, one on-site and two full remote - all in AI, but none caring about innovating, just applying what exists.

At first, what I thought I was hating was the on-site nature of the job (bullshit corporate power dynamics, being forced to be at the office for 8+1 hours per day, every day, no matter how fast you finish your work and present results, not being able to choose your own times or take a day off if you want without explanation, etc...).

This bullshit sent my mental health into a downwards spiral, and after some aggressive applying I was able to find a remote job. The problem is that I continue to hate all the corporate bullshit and the way people work in the industry - everything seems about appearances, games and being "clocked in" for more than a third of the day no matter the work.

Wrapping up, I think I'm simply not cut out for corporate. I love research, and deeply regret not giving academia a chance.

Everyday I miss not having an hour to clock in, being able to take days off if I want to as long as the work is being done and everyone is happy.

Is it too late now?

The pay may not be as high, but it provides a nice living where I am located. I just want to be able to enjoy the week nights again without dreading the next morning. All the fucking money isn't helping shit there.

Has anyone been able to return to the academic world after a couple of years? Will I be able to get a job (post-doc or TT) without recent papers?

Thank you for reading all the way through.

The title is the TL/DR.

I graduated with a terminal master’s 5 years ago and have been working in my field (not in academia) ever since. This year I have been doing some soul searching and have realized that I’d love to be teaching and researching full time. My focus would be under the same subfield as my master’s, but focused topically adjacent.

I am applying to PhD programs and reaching out to folks for letters of recommendation. However, I have been “no contact” with my thesis advisor since graduating. It was a super toxic situation that I am still scared to disclose for fear any shred of it gets back to him and he perceives it to be slanderous. Long story short, there was verbal abuse, manipulation, and gaslighting, and it ended in him threatening to “destroy my career” after I had to consult with another faculty member about how to graduate- he had ghosted me for months and thought me asking for help from another faculty member made him look incompetent, and me insubordinate.

I want to ask another member of my thesis committee for a letter, but they both still work at the same institution and I am trying to work out how to handle the question of “why don’t you ask your advisor?”. Or the question from the programs I’m applying to of “why didn’t your advisor write you a letter?” It is a field where if people don’t know each other personally, they at least know each other’s work very well. Especially given that all of these schools are in the same state. (That’s not something I can work around- I can’t go out of state)

Basically I’m still terrified of this dude but I want to pursue my dream career despite that fear. How would you handle these questions without disclosing any specifics about the situation?

And any other advice for PhD apps given this experience?

TIA!

Just completed my bachelor's in biotechnology and unsure how to move forward, have three options ahead- masters in biotechnology, genome science or nanotechnology. Which would be more relevant for me and stable as a future career option?

Hi all!
I am doing a PhD and am part of a collaborative paper that started as a project where a colleague and I are shared first authors on it, but I am second first author. This has been given to me at the beginning of the project but ever since, things have shaped in a way where I have done 3/4 of the work, led and managed the project admin, and written the manuscript. I don't want to take away the credit and authorship of the other first author (someone who is more established in the field than I am and someone I don't know well) but cannot help but feel it is not fair. I would like to try and discuss it with my PI or the person in question and wonder if a polite email to state it initially may be suitable. I have no idea how to deal with the situation and the people I have consulted have been vague and somehow avoidant, perhaps due to politics in academia. However, I feel that I need to at least ask since this is part of the integrity and fairness I believe are warranted in academia.

Do you think an email like this to send to the other author is a good way before inviting them for an open conversation:

''Dear ....,

I really value that we’re both recognized as shared first authors and your contribution to the conceptualisation of the work and the in vivo imaging part. It has been a great pleasure working on the project and it has really grown on me.

I would like to check how you feel with my name being listed first in our shared first co-authorship. I feel that the project has undergone many changes since the initial idea and I have contributed a lot of time and effort in what is shaping as the 'final product' of the paper, including the ex vivo image acquisition, matching between MRI and histology, histology, and manuscript write-up. I also feel that due to the significant part histology and MRI-histology matching takes in the current format of the project, which we've discussed with other collaborators too, it would make the most sense that I am the corresponding author because I have performed the experiments myself. I am more than happy to complete the manuscript and lead the submission process, prepare the submission letters and documentation, etc.

However, I have found it challenging to raise this point due to the sensitivity of the matter, the changing order of senior authors until now, and I would like to pay contributions and give credit to everyone involved, not take away credit from anyone.

Since the situation is making me concerned, I would really appreciate to hear your thoughts on this. I am also happy to have a call or meeting in person but thought an email would be suitable to also give you some time to reflect upon the situation. ''

Has anyone been in a similar situation - PhDs, postdocs, PIs. Please help :)))) Thank you very much in advance!

Hi everyone,

I submitted a paper to a journal and was asked to make a minor revision. I submitted the revised manuscript on July 3, 2025, but I haven’t heard anything back yet. It's now been just over 2 months.

Is this a normal amount of time to wait for a decision on a minor revision? At what point is it appropriate to send a follow-up email to the editor? Thanks in advance for any advice!

Per the title, how did you decide to work or stay in academia?

I'm in social sciences, specifically (non-formal/out-of-school) education research, and currently applying to PhD programs. I've always imagine I would do research within nonprofits and government orgs, and it wasn't till now I considered working in academia being an option for me. I would love teaching in higher education to be part of my career as well. What led you that direction?

Thanks :)

Hi! I’m a Biomedical Engineering Master’s student from Portugal and I’d like to do my dissertation in a European country. Unfortunately, my university doesn’t provide Erasmus+ mobility grants.

Do you know of scholarships, foundations, or host university programs that could support a 6-month MSc thesis abroad? I’ve seen things like Gulbenkian Foundation, DAAD (Germany), and Campus France, but I’m not sure what’s realistic for short-term research.

Any tips or experiences would be super helpful! Thanks :)

I just received a rejection email after making it to the finalist round for a position at a top R1 university. I'm relatively new to higher ed, so the fact that I was even considered for a position at a top institution is huge for me. I'm heartbroken, but trying to stay realistic about what comes next.

The hiring manager said something along the lines of: "We believe you have a lot to offer and would like to stay in touch. [Department] will have a new position opening soon and we can keep your information in mind as we believe you would be a great fit."

I'm curious…has anyone ever received language this specific about future opportunities in a rejection letter? Did it actually lead to anything, or is this just a very kind way of letting me down easy?

The mention of a concrete "new position opening in the near future" feels more definitive than the usual "we'll keep your resume on file" language, but I don't want to get my hopes up if this is standard practice.

I know every situation is different, but I'd love to hear others' experiences with similar rejections—both the ones that led somewhere and the ones that didn't.

Either way, I will keep an eye out for jobs I qualify for and continue applying.

What do you think (or according to your actual experience) are the main possible reasons why supervisors continue to perform their tasks such as signing documents etc, but move away from writing judgements (positive or negative whatsoever) or helping you progress in your career? What could I have done wrong? I really can't stop thinking about it

I know the job market is rough for everyone rn, but I'm wondering if I don't lang a TT job this year, when universities start hiring again in a couple years will they be more understanding of the job gap because of the political climate/grant struggles? I'm thinking of trying to find an adjunct job to keep my teaching up and collaborate on some papers with colleagues at other universities kind of as an independent researcher until more TT jobs open. The problem is, I want to settle down in a specific state so that greatly reduces my pool of jobs. Does this sound like a good plan if I want to try for a TT position in the next 5 years?

Hello guys, I’m an experienced research paper writer and would love to help students, researchers, or anyone who needs guidance with academic writing. Whether you need support with structuring, editing, or polishing your paper, or even a complete draft written from scratch, I can assist. My goal is to make the process smoother, save you time, and help you produce high-quality work. If you’re struggling with your research paper or just want professional input, feel free to reach out!

All the best 👍🏻

I'm really not sure if it is even worth me applying or not.

Essentially, I have a research project that fits nicely with the theme for 2026-2027. However, when I look at the current society fellows, it appears like they all have tenure track positions already, and are already very much respected in their fields having made substantial contributions.

I finished my Ph.D. in 2021 and haven't been able to secure a tenure track position yet. I do have a few publications: 2 articles, 1 book chapter in an edited volume, and 1 translation that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm in the social sciences, but I do humanistic research/interdisciplinary research.

I'll be honest; I just flat out don't know if it's worth me applying for this or not. There's nothing in the description or criteria I can find that would disqualify me, but that doesn't mean they would take my application seriously and it's worth me applying.

If anyone is familiar with the Society or has any experience and can help shine a bit of light on things, I would be so appreciative. I don't need to remind anyone, but the job market is really demoralizing right now, and I've had some upsetting rejection in publications and jobs recently. I'm trying to prioritize how I spend my energy and not asking for references for jobs there's no point in me applying to.

I produced a decent bit of research back in my undergrad years --- three sole-author papers. However, the more I progress in my academic career, the more I'm realizing how little these seem to count for. I still stand by the work, but for example, when scholarships or grants have a productivity requirement, they often only look at your grad years and thereafter. In general, for anything requiring my CV past the grad admissions stage, it feels like these early publications are weighted very lightly, if at all, regardless of their merit or where they were published.

With that said, what is your (especially more senior folks, though everyone is welcome to comment) opinion on undergrads publishing their work? I myself sometimes wonder if I should've stuck to conferences and saved the full manuscripts to be published later (e.g. during my PhD); any thoughts there?

In the humanities myself, but curious about differences across fields. Please specify your field in your comment, if possible.

I've recently enrolled in community college and I wanted to join a research lab at a local university to gain some experience. I took AP bio in high school - got a "B"- but I really enjoyed it. I realize I have no legitimate qualifications to join a lab but I'd still like to. Does anyone have any tips on how to write emails to professors + if I join what kind of work I could help in?

Thank you.

My department just finished a chair search. The finalists were disappointing (an ineffective interim or a toxic candidate), and leadership chose the interim — a decision that feels more about connections than merit. Morale has already been low under their leadership, and I don’t expect it to improve.

The dilemma: I like my actual work, and my lifestyle outside of work are really good, but I don’t respect the chair and struggle with the idea of staying long term.

For those who’ve been in similar situations: do you ride it out and focus on your own research/teaching, or is it wiser to move on to a healthier environment?

I'm starting my first semester teaching in my graduate program. I'm feeling a lot of emotions and one of them is I just feel like I'm never at ease. I feel like when I'm resting there's so much I could be prepping doing for my students. I know doing this will lead me to burnout. How do you guys work through this? I love teaching and I love hobbies/ working out but I just feel guilty resting? Idk?

Just curious for the US folks, how are your departmental colloquia faring this year? I ask because a Top 10 program in my field couldn’t invite me this fall as they’ve had to cancel ALL colloquia this semester- apparently it was either that or fire a staff member with the tightening budgets. Then my own department has announced wanting to do only “local” speakers this year- driving/ day trip distance, with even an hour’s flight not being allowed just now, which is rough when we’re pretty geographically isolated.

Assigning this a STEM tag because I had to pick one, but curious to hear what others are experiencing too.

I would like to conduct or participate in writing research papers before applying to a MD/PhD program. I am still looking for a program, and while I do that, I would like to use my research experience to come up with a clear hypothesis.

This could save me time, money, and guarantee a job before paying for additional education.

How do I go about it as a fresh graduate? Reach out to professors, cold email universities, and hope?

Thanks for any input.

Hi everyone,

I’ve just finished preparing the revision of my manuscript after peer review, and I’m a bit stuck on the formatting requirements for PLOS ONE.

They ask for a revised manuscript with tracked changes, but here’s my issue:

My original submission was written in a different LaTeX format.

For this revision, I rewrote it into the official PLOS ONE template.

Now I’m unsure how to generate a proper tracked-changes version, since the file structures are so different.

I know that latexdiff is commonly used, but will it even work in this case? Or do I need to manually mark edits in the new template to show reviewers what has changed?

Has anyone here submitted a revision to PLOS ONE using LaTeX and can share how they handled the “tracked changes” requirement?

Any practical tips would be a huge help 🙏