In humanities it's normal for students to have no published papers at all before finishing the PhD. I was unusual in having 2, sole-authored ones. This doesn't cause any problems for the viva, which isn't based on published papers, unless you're doing a PhD by publication. But it does have an impact on future job hunting success. Basically the more papers, of higher impact journals, the better when it comes to looking for post-docs.

A similar question was asked just the other day. See http://www.postgraduateforum.com/thread-34236/

I always acknowledge help I've received, usually in a footnote at the start. Most journal editors allow this type of thing. I always include the text for this as a note of thanks, to be included if the paper is accepted for publication.

I think it will vary a lot, depending on personalities, and also if your supervisor is to be a co-author. In humanities it's not normal for supervisors to be co-authors. In sciences it is. You certainly shouldn't submit a co-authored paper with your supervisor's name on it without letting him/her look at it before submission.

I published multiple journal papers as a history PhD student. I didn't send them to my supervisor first, and just got on with it. These were sole-authored papers.

Yes my husband commented it might make a reader smile! But I doubt many PhD students reading cover to cover would even notice. Not everyone reads every single footnote, even when reading a thesis otherwise thoroughly.

Yes you can. My husband's PhD was in theoretical computer science. He got a post-doc in space technology research, and now works in that as a research fellow.

Just ignore it. I doubt there are many theses that get through to final binding that don't have mistakes. It's normal to find mistakes in your thesis years afterwards! If you cross it out you will only draw attention to it. Just forget about it.

It would be helpful if you said what your subject area is. I applied for funding from AHRC (I was a history PhD student) during my first year, and won it for my second year onwards. But I'm not sure if they allow such funding applications any more, in particular they seem, like other UK research councils, to have restricted their funding to certain institutions.

Other options are charity-based funding. I once saw a very useful list of links, but can't find it again now. Maybe Google would help. Again subject is important for this, with charities tending to fund things in specific areas.

Oh and I was a part-time PhD student too.

Good luck!

Peer reviewing is where your article, anonymised, is sent out to at least 2 other academics to read, critique, and recommend to the editor whether to accept it.

An academic journal that is peer reviewed is regarded more highly on CVs than one that isn't. Your article is deemed to have gone through a more rigorous selection process, and the subsequent publication is therefore viewed as more impressive and worthy. Generally you should submit to a peer reviewed academic journal. If in doubt contact the editor to see if they do peer review.

As I said peer review can be a tough process. It can also take quite some time. So get submitting as soon as reasonably possible. Journal publication can be a very slow process.

It's the same in humanities. Conference papers are good for experience and networking, but generally little use for career advancement purposes. It's journal papers that count.

Yes journals will accept submissions from students as well as post-docs and experienced academics. A bigger question is whether a student could produce work of enough depth and analysis to be deemed publication worthy by the anonymous reviewers. Your work will need to be of an extremely good standard. But give it a go!

I had 2 journal papers (peer-reviewed) published during my part-time PhD. Sole authored by me (history student), in a subject area where sole authorship is normal. On the downside sole authorship means you take all responsibility for the submission. And peer review can be really tough - be prepared to get really tough feedback! It can be much harder than e.g. feedback from a PhD supervisor. It is common for example to be offered revise and resubmit, where you are told lots of things that are wrong with your paper, and given tips, often not necessarily too clear, on how to fix it. Don't be depressed. View this as having a foot holding the door open, make the changes, and resubmit. You have a very good chance of being accepted.

I wasn't suggesting you get a part-time job, I was suggesting you get a full-time one, and work on the thesis part-time (switching to part-time registration at your university) in evenings and weekends. It's perfectly doable, and lots of part-time PhD-ers do this.

And more time can improve a thesis. You need time to edit it enough, and improve the writing quality. First draft, even second and third draft, is not good enough. Time is useful. Rushing it is not likely to work out well. You are increasing the chances of a resubmission verdict, and you don't want that.

I agree that quality is more important than quantity, but I'm still very doubtful that with 60% done so far you can produce a quality-enough finish in just 3 months. I would listen to your supervisor. Get a job, work on your thesis in the evenings/weekends, switching to part-time study, to finish. That's how part-timers all over the place manage, and usually unfunded. A PhD doesn't need to be completed full-time.

In my case my thesis was under-length. It came in at 70,000 words when my department wanted 80-100,000. But I was advised that quality not quantity counts, but I didn't rush it. And it was bumped up to an extent with hefty databases in e-appendices, which sort of improved the bulk impression. And I passed my viva with just minor typo corrections. Which is sort of encouraging for you, but I'm still doubtful you can do enough in the full time left you are allowing yourself.

I think you need to think a bit more about what you want to do after the PhD career-wise. HazyJane is correct that there are far more PhD students completing than jobs for them. So getting a PhD-related job afterwards, whether in academia or industry, could be a tough call. And in academia short contracts are the norm for many workers, those lucky enough to get jobs.

It used to be the case that a PhD would open up other options. It still can, but it often doesn't. And it can leave someone over-qualified for other posts, at least in the eyes of those considering giving the person a job, which causes problems in itself.

I don't want to sound too negative here, but I am concerned about someone leaving an - albeit high-stress job like teaching - for something less secure in the main. You also have to bear in mind that a PhD will just last 3 years or so, and what are you going to do after that. Don't assume doors and opportunities will open up. And a PhD isn't an end in itself.

Having said that though I'm a big fan of going with your heart. But keep your head on too :)