Yes, it would in the first instance be one for your doctoral school, or academic registry - they will then follow up with a reminder to the internal.

Lockdown has generated a lot of work for academics; teaching needed to be moved online which often requires a change in formats (if not content); and research projects have been massively complicated by the inability to do field work in many circumstances, and forthcoming cuts/renegotiation to many streams of funding.

It's perhaps inevitable that to an academic the lecture or project meeting due tomorrow tends to take precedence over the review of corrections that 'can wait'. It would be likely that they'll 'get to it' once the teaching semester ends (depending on Uni this is in the next 1-3 weeks).

You will need a certain, limited degree of patience. You might be able to formally complain, but the issue then is the internal can technically withdraw which will drag things out much longer as an alternative reviewer is sourced. In general the academic judgment is quite sacrosanct; you needing a letter might prompt registry to in turn prompt the internal, but it won't (shouldn't), mean you're waved through.

You should not contact examiners directly - most UK Unis have very strict rules about this. In the absolute worst case it could be misconstrued as you trying to pressure them towards a certain outcome and could result in a re-viva or disciplinary action.

Usually corrections are indicated as needing either both examiners approval, or in the case of 'minor minor' corrections, only the internal.

It's rare the supervisor can actively block it, but they may be asked for a signature to indicate they approve the submission. It doesn't mean you can't submit if they don't; but it needs reconciling, worst case being the supervisor effectively states they don't feel the corrections have been done and can't approve the submission, but it still goes ahead (in a way, absolving them of any blame).

I'd try to resolve/understand the supervisor situation, since it might be the case there's a real problem they're trying to alert you on. If it's a more awful case (like they're delaying the submission because they need a warm body to push buttons on a machine for 6 months), I'd still try to resolve it by explaining that financially you can't afford that. If you ultimately can't it's possible to submit without approval from DoS in the vast majority of programmes, but as mentioned be careful before you do as they might be trying to impress upon you a risk of a fail/MPhil.

I don't regularly check these forums but see you attacked me kinda baselessly in another thread on the back of this.

I should probably have explained more why it was disappointing. It's nothing to do with PhD students wanting/deserving better treatment (which they often do), or your language, it was that the tone of your OP smacked of elitism along the lines of 'we don't have those problems here because we're Russell Group', and that the poster was lesser than you (or stupid) for voicing their opinion.

It's further to your discredit that you then went on to slam one of my unrelated posts apparently baselessly/emotively (attacking on this basis will fail and you'll ultimately screw yourself over if you do it professionally); but if you do have a basis I'd be happy to have an academic discussion with you on the forums.

I'm an educator/researcher so my only possible gain here is trying to explain to you, presumptively as a prospective future researcher, why telling someone they should 'work through their issues lol!' isn't constructive, and nor is elitism.

Yeah I'm a bit thrown by this. Could you help identify these 'discouraging, negative, and stale views' more precisely? I would stand by my comments on 'promised' posts being risky, and that it's good practice to approach an interview competitively. If you're referring to my comment that UKRI are open to changes in direction, I'd think that's the opposite of stale - I think most supervisors are open to their students changing path, provided they can provide a legitimate academic argument as to why (else, it's negligent supervision, imo).


I am very open to criticism, but I'm struggling to tally your argument against what I said, this might be me being stupid, but please feel free to spell it out to me.


[nb - I think on reviewing recent posts this was on the back of a criticism I made to an unrelated post, but as above, open to insight/critique].

It is so disappointing as a student at an 'excellent Russell group' you think and write like this.

Welcome to the reality of academia; where many people without any research interest or integrity have discovered it's easy to make a quick buck.

Journal publication fees? Sure, 500Eur for taking the perfectly-formatted manuscript you asked for from the author, and printing it out or exporting to PDF and publishing online. The actual work reviewing it will be done for free by academics, because prestige and CoI otherwise.

Better still, go open-access so you don't even have to print anything, just take a .docx, save as .pdf, pocket 500 - 1500Eur. And Unis will demand academics use you, because you're open access and it's a mandatory REF-criteria! :)

Sit your publishing company near a Uni and get cosy, so they recommend you, and printing/binding ~200 A4 sides is easily a 200Eur+ job, even though it takes 5 minutes and costs next to nothing. Because who'd fail their PhD for the sake of that 200Eur?

This is a bit of an oversimplification. But it's how it's got; and it's now in such a mess for such a long time, it's become the norm. I have PhD students approached by publishers who are offering them to 'publish' (i.e. stick online) their thesis for a massive fee. This invariable involves signing off the copyright for 3-5 years of their hard work and actually paying money to do it.

It's ludicrous, but it's where we've gotten to.

I'd point out culturally, it's likely your supervisor would still write you a letter of recommendation. I've had the fortune to work with academics from many different cultures, and some take this very seriously/honestly, whereas some take it as a formality/glowing by default, and some care only in the sense HR request it and no academic actually reads it. Obviously, when these clash, it's confusing for all involved.

The problem is not, I think, going to be the lack of a letter of recommendation, but the reasons that underpin it. If you have 3 months left (PhDs in Canada are typically 5-6 years?), and you're not so much arguing about the thesis write-up, but the actual experiment you're doing, you are never completing successfully on-time. I think your supervisor has hit the point of trying to tell you what to do 'by the numbers', and you should really listen carefully before arguing. There may be a truth you don't want to face there (like the fact you're not completing on-time), which is skewing how you hear and respond to their academic argument.

It's been my experience managing UKRI studentships that UKRI are very open to the student changing direction in discussion with the supervisor, unless it's really radical (like changing field). It's eminently possible - in fact quite normal - to end with a thesis title that's a long way from the project proposal.

It's a bit of a half-truth that leaving after you start will have a negative impact on your prospects. A bad Uni/prof may even suggest this because it's certainly bad for them - as they're potentially left with PhD funding for 2.5 years, which they won't be able to spend without internal funding to top it back up to 3 years. It may well harm your chances of success at the same institution with the same prof, but won't generally be problematic. Word does not travel as far in academia as most believe.

Rejecting an offer (before you've taken any salary), by comparison, carries no stigma I've ever seen. It's the Uni's fault if they don't insist on a decision by a date.

Irrespective it's essential you go into the interview mentioning none of this and being enthusiastic. This isn't dishonest, it's being professional and making the most of every opportunity. Just getting an interview is by no means a guarantee of an offer (I average about 20 per studentship); if you say you're not actually that keen you'll likely be immediately written off and the decision won't be one you'll need to worry about..! :)

I'd just end by noting, it is always risky in academia to rely on a future promise or opportunity of a post. Naive, well-meaning academics often slip into giving vague promises of future opportunities to students, when anything not signed is extremely open to the whims of HR, senior management, funding councils, etc., - an academic that's not a VC is seldom in a position to 'guarantee' a future opportunity to anyone.

There are two extremes in the system as-is, and a really tough middle ground.

Extreme a) is you've just graduated from a Masters, and want a funded PhD. This is highly competitive, but you don't necessarily need much experience beyond high grades, persistence, and an ability to interview convincingly and complete in 3 years.

Extreme b) is you're about to retire, and want to do a PhD as a final note to your working life. You're able/willing to self-fund, and as a result can basically shop around Unis, who will generally find a way to take your money for part time study whilst setting you up with a supervisor with sufficient knowledge/interest for a monthly coffee & chat over the 5-10 years you'll do it without pressure.

There is some vague justice in the system, in that a funded PhD is, by and large, taxpayer funded, and the taxpayer probably wants to benefit from your life of research as the return on investment, rather than just the thesis.

The tough, unfair, middle ground is attempting to get a funded PhD if you're mid-career, can't necessarily afford to self-fund, and are hoping for work experience to help address a change in topic (or weak grades on graduation way back when). If you can self-fund, getting a PhD position is not hard (though, actually getting the PhD, is obviously challenging). If you need funding, you'd likely need, as an earlier posted suggested, to be able to demonstrate you've been engaged with the topic either professionally or personally throughout your career; or persuade your employer to provide the funding.

It's bad not in concept but because the tone is unprofessional.

You shouldn't have given a hotmail correspondence email if you do not regularly check it. This is really bad as a starting point. I would not hire you on this basis. It shows a total lack of professionalism.

It can be worded in a professional way, but this would need reference to the original feedback. It's very much ok to ask for clarification on it, but if you slip into the space of arguing their decision that's already made or attempting to show it's a bad decision, it's futile and will look bad.

You should understand rejection from a competitive hire isn't like undergraduate study; you don't get a hire for scoring X, you get a hire for scoring higher than anyone else who applied. This is totally a shock to many students who have done well in their studies and don't understand the competitive, and random (you can't control who else applies) nature of the real world.

Learn, and move on, imo.

Rewt is very right.

As an academic, I am routinely surprised (though I should not be) at students or prospective students reading so much into me forgetting to answer an email.

It's understandable - to a student the relationship with a supervisor is the primary, and often more or less sole, validation they have of weeks or months of effort. But to a supervisor, it's one email among 30-50 a day.

You have to understand, the prospective supervisor sees this thing as a few emails they may forget. It doesn't help if any requests you include work-heavy tasks, as irrespective of enthusiasm, something that will take hours of work to meaningfully respond to (if it's not a 'no') often goes down the pile below 'I can quickly answer that' requests, and may take a while to re-surface.

You may have misinterpreted 'support' in applying for funding here. Personally, I will 'support' an applicant with a robust proposal after reading it by signing a form stating I think it's a good proposal. I won't (can't) help them write it in most circumstances if they're asking me to feedback on drafts, meet, and discuss, because then this would have to be done for every applicant, which is unmanageable.

They probably barely remember their interactions with you. You generally lose nothing by applying, as you can always walk away from an offer.

Completely subjective reply:

> St. A. Bit posh/Harry Potter. Northern/Scottish Oxbridge rejects. Arguably most prestigious choice as a result.
> Nottingham. Probably the middle-ground in terms of academic normal. Therefore potentially boring.
> Leeds. Down to earth and Northern. Probably the least prestigious but most fun. But Leeds is pretty grim as a city (but much improving).
> Southampton. Southern. Some instances of knotted cardigans around necks, though otherwise generally normal.
> QMU. The UoL part nobody has ever heard of. London is awesome, and good UoL prestige. Check campus though as possibility it will be in dirtland 50 miles out.

Best way is objective and impartial, like an academic.

I'm assuming this is not a straightforward cut-and-paste plagiarism. Sadly these days too many people interpret it as 'lazy' (student) plagiarism where words are copied from elsewhere verbatim, when, as I'm thinking is the case here, it's a theft of concept or idea. If it's cut+paste just show both texts and with any reputable journal they'll deal with it.

If it's the idea, what the journal editor will likely have to consider, is:

- Is it likely they stole your concept, or came up with it independently? If it's something general, this is hard for you to prove ('collective action is key to stopping global warming!'). The more specific it is, and you argue it, the better the case ('the 10-point framework for stopping global warming is...').

- Is the background and related work of the authors such that it would support this independence? (If they have published nothing relevant, then immediately written a paper advancing the SoTA, this is suspicious).

- Would they have had the opportunity to plagiarise? (e.g. based on publication dates).

I'd generally argue around these three points. Do consider the first carefully, and how specific you feel the concept stolen is; I can't pass judgment on this (nor should I) due to the limited information.

The grass is not as grim, in the postdoc world, as some people make out, but it's certainly not greener.

A PhD won't typically help a great deal with jobs outside academia; it is a mandatory passport (with few exemptions) to ones within it though.

The realistic employment prospects afterwards, are a fixed-term postdoc (which can be great, if contract security isn't a big deal for you), or a permanent lectureship (which can be great, if you like teaching, and don't care research will be relegated to your spare time). The 'bit of both' (teaching/research, with a permanent contract) is the elusive, hard to find thing.

It gets massively harder if you're fixed to a location after your PhD. This can be hard to predict.

A PhD is very self-directed, especially in the humanities. If you're happy reading books 9-5, consolidating thoughts, and writing them up it will fit well. If you're someone that thrives on short term tangible goals, praise from management, or clear direction, it will be a lot harder.

It is tougher with respect to the parent situation, but parents universally want their children to be happy. They may well (in crazy-parent-logic, which you'll probably experience yourself one day) - be much more worried about your future than their own support, but be using it to try to convince you into a route that they think will secure your future. This will be with the best intention in the world, but they will not have the perspective you do. They are probably sensing your own doubt about the future in academia and this is worrying them. There's not a right-and-wrong, but I think you need to think honestly about what you want to do and why, then sit down and explain it to them. It is impossible to predict where you'll be 5 years from now, but if you're intelligent enough to get PhD offers, you will always be able to find a job regardless of your choices; it's about finding a job you want to do.

[Edit - why, edit, do you destroy my paragraphs!]

I'm male, so can't provide you with the female perspective (and, will probably not understand as such), but;

This sounds very not-ok to me. The fact you're uncomfortable with it is enough to make it, at the least, very inappropriate. It is not normal. There are random justifications - like cultural differences - but it is just flat inappropriate to touch someone affectionately without clear consent. There is such common knowledge of this in modern society it's increasingly hard to believe a guy would do it because he believes it's normal.

The fact he's happily married, is not a reason he wouldn't behave inappropriately. Most guys that behave like this are. It's a power/sexual thing, not a romantic relationship thing for them. Absolutely do not fall for him saying anything otherwise. It might be legal for him to hit on a student, but it's certainly not moral or ethical, and that would speak volumes about his character.

It's not ok, and you'd be perfectly entitled to go to his manager and complain. But I get we also live in the real world, where the worry is that could result in a he-said she-said and a whole lot of negative feeling and stress. It may be good advice to ignore my next suggestion, since it's what I'm the least sure of, and I'd think there's a counter argument that suggesting you need to strategise or behave differently unfairly puts the responsibility on you for his behaviour. But I'll give my 2 cents:

The next time it happens, react abruptly, e.g. immediately pulling away, to send a clear message it's not ok to him. If you're worried about upsetting/embarrassing him, act startled (like it's *really* not normal to you), rather than directly offended. In principle you need to react, negatively, somehow, to send a message it's not ok.

If it continues, do something. You're not obliged to have a face to face with him about it, but I'd think that, or raising a complaint, would be the logical next-step. Bear in mind this might not be particularly acrimonious, it could be at the level you say you felt uncomfortable; he pleads ignorance/cultural difference; you reach an amicable solution, he stops because it's just been made abundantly clear to him it's wrong. Definitely if it escalates at all, you'll need to take action or it's likely to keep escalating.