It would be useful if you could get someone who produces top tier stuff / has a fab publication record to look at your paper before submitting it. This might accomplish what it is you are really looking for here. Is there anyone in your department / who your supervisors collaborate with who fits the bill and wouldn't mind looking over it? This is pretty common practice and might make more sense then asking someone to collaborate when they aren't contributing something substantial other than giving pointers on how to increase the quality.

Good luck!

I agree with what others have said here. Ask WHY the famous person is getting published in top tier journals. Maybe it is to do with the quality of their work and writing. Read their work and aim for that kind of quality yourself - then you should be able to publish in the same journals. Peer review is meant to be anonymous (although sometimes it is obvious to a reviewer who it is).

Interesting! Maybe the subjectivity increases as you go higher through the education system. I have more faith, so as to speak, in my UG result than in my Masters one (although they were similar overall, there was so much variation in my Master module marks - which I think reflected variability in markers rather than topic/ability)... I have yet to undergo viva but I already know that it can swing either way and although my initial joy/despondency will depend on the outcome, I already know that it won't necessarily reflect the quality of my work (though it may)...

Is this what academia does to you?

Cheers Pjlu. In my case, it is actually my advisor who appears to be doing it (there are some pretty blatant examples and I think others could notice it too - so not just me being paranoid)... which is ironic. I mean, your advisor is meant to be separate from the supervisory team, and there to be able to discuss issues etc that may arise with your PhD/supervision etc. As for the former supervisor, she isn't blanking me at all. She is actually trying to keep our contact going (sending me unnecessary emails for instance), which I don't really want, as it had become unprofessional and bad which is why I wanted out.

I think I'm at that stage in academia where you realise that the people you looked up to so much are really human... the behaviour from the advisor is reminiscent of playground behaviour, which is why I am not intimidated by it (I learnt how to deal with it at juniors school!). I'm just glad I know my own mind and am really enjoying my work since I made the decision to switch. I have no hard feelings and will include my former supervisor on the acknowledgements by the name. That said, unlike in PhDPanic's situation, she did give a lot of input and support. So it is only fair to acknowledge that.

As for the advisor... I don't know... ! So much for rising above it and showing professionalism! :D

Thanks fallenonion and ToL. This is definitely helpful. I think since she is the more senior academic, and the one who has suggested the collaboration, she will probably be the one adding me to the grant (or else I do it off my own back). Anyone else with knowledge or experience of this, please continue to comment...

Oh dear... I am being blanked by someone too (my advisor - since I changed supervisors). Not nice. Seems very childish. I'd acknowledge them still. Rising above it and showing real professionalism. That's just my view though! Perhaps leaving them off is more sincere? Depends whether you view that page as a formality or as a real space for personal acknowledgement. For some lucky ones, it can be both!

Here are some interesting ones for anyone wanting to procrastinate this afternoon: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/best-academic-acknowledgements-ever

Hi all

I'm in my final year and will probably look to start a postdoc after submitting my thesis. However, I have been asked to collaborate by someone overseas once I finish my PhD - this collaboration would involve analysing already collected data and writing a joint publication (or publications) based on it. My question is - do you just do this sort of thing alongside whatever else you are doing (e.g., looking for postdoc, working as an RA...) or is this something that you should try and get funding (to support yourself whilst carrying it out).

I am not sure if I have explained what I'm asking very well...

I guess the bottom line is - this person has mentioned collaborating and we have a proposed idea of several research questions we want to address (not yet written up as a formal proposal). But I am wondering do I just do this off my own back or can I be supported financially?

I have an understanding of how grants normally work - you apply for funding to carry out your research. Is this essentially the same thing and I should be applying for funding from a relevant research body? Can you even apply for a grant if you aren't attached to a University at the time? Feeling very ignorant about all this.

Cheers
Tudor

I don't think PhDPanic is overthinking it. If she/he doesn't want to risk getting anyone's backs up (future collaborators and/or simply departmental colleagues), I think it is best to be on the safe side and include all (or none).

Hi PhDPanic

If you don't want to include acknowledgements, you really don't have to. Personally, I would either acknowledge them all or not include acknowledgements at all. This is what I am doing (one of those options - undecided yet), as I too have changed supervisors. I think it is good etiquette and professional to include all who are or were at some stage officially on the supervisory team - if you choose to include acknowledgements that is. If you left a name off, I think yes, it could be seen as petty.

Tudor

Congratulations Pjlu!
Lovely new avatar too!
Tudor

Curious about what you decided in the end...

The first year is notoriously bad/hard to cope with/feels without clear direction... it is hard advice to take but I think the best thing to do is chill out and make the most of it. You could spend some time setting up reference software and organising things if you haven't done this already. It sounds like you're doing fine! It won't stay like that forever - promise!

Feeling inspired after reading that, fallenonion!

Re interacting with other PhD students. This has been great for me too as it enabled me to set up a reading group that was really beneficial to me in my 2nd year. And before starting my PhD - talking to people got me RA jobs and then PhD opportunities (not the actual funding but being asked to apply and given support in doing so). So in my experience, the benefits of it cannot be overstated.

However - I think that if you have strengths/things that come easy to YOU - then this is the way to go. For me, networking is just completely natural and totally rewarding. But on the other hand, things like widening participation and public involvement are not my strengths. Frankly, I just do not feel at all motivated by them/find them interesting. But I think that for those people who are good at it and find it rewarding, it is the way to go. It will help them in their careers and is important for science. I might get a bit involved from time to time, but I don't worry that I am not doing it much. This is just what works for me.

So after bigging up the great benefits of networking, I do agree with pm133 as well. Don't sweat about it. Do what feels right for you/is a strength (as is your ability to work independently and be entirely focused on your research) and reap the benefits of that.