Great to hear. Now you have your life back.

All the best for the future!!!

Ian

Normally, you can appeal against a "fail" or "MPhil" decision but only if there are irregularities in the examination process. This will only result in re-examination by new examiners rather than the original decision being overturned.

I think you may be at the point where might consider appealing against a third set of revisions, with the defence that you have already done everthing asked of you. However, that depends on how prepared you are to restart the examination process from scratch with new examiners.

Your situation is strange to me to say the least, with three sets of major revisions??? In the worst case you should face two sets of revisions, a major set with or without re-examination followed by at most minor corrections should the revised script be deemed acceptable PhD standard. Your extermal examiner has already exceeded this by asking for a second major set, let alone a third set (by special permission - I've never heard of this).

If further major revisions were deemed necessary then not meaning to sound harsh, by normal procedure the logical outcome should have been to downgrade to MPhil or fail. The fact this has not happened is irregular in itself and thus may give you grounds for appeal.

If your extermal examiner has these concerns, then it may have been kinder to fail you so at least you could start the appeals process rather than drag the process out as you describe.

I note from later posts that you've talked to the Chair and expressed your concerns. I hope you hear back within a reasonable period and that the long wait you're facing soon comes to an end. I know from other's posts on here that people have faced considerable waits. Academia is welll known for this, basically putting people's lves on hold and that in itself can be very unfair.

I seriously hope you manage to sort things out.

Ian

I think because we've all moved on from our original positions, Elsevier couldn't contact any of us. It is as simple as that.

I am going to contact the journal directly, but because I wasn't involved in the amended version think the request for a copy might be turned down.

I'm familiar with journal publication and know to expect a copy under normal circumstances, but am finding this current situation strange.

Ian

I've tried everything to be honest including trying to locate this " F.T. Mahi". I found reference to him / her at Trinity College Dublin, however, he / she is not listed on the research staff there.

In fact, there's no trace apart from this person amending other people's work to go into "Materials Science and Materials Engineering, 2016". Strange.

I'm going to leave this be until I'm back in work then possibly have done and pay to download it.

Ian

Yes, I am one of the named authors. In simple terms, the amendment has occurred without my knowledge of that of the other authors. However, all of the original authors have moved on and I'm guessing that the journal has been unable to contact any of us.

They've therefore apparently employed an extra expert in the field has been brought in to carry out updates and amendments.

I'm not bothered as such, though it would be nice to see what amendmends have been made. I simply want to add it to my CV as I've found myself out of work again (a factor I'll address in a separate post and the reason for my sudden reappearance on this group) and it would be an extra selling point.

Ian

No, the link above is to the newer version.

I'm gathering Elsevier couldn't contact anyone and thus involved the new author.

If the link doesn't work, not to worry as I have a plan B.

Ian

I'll start by being honest and straight with you about how I feel. Havng being heavily involved in sport myself and having remained clean, I think if guilty you've been very stupid and I don't like the idea of competing against drug cheats. That said, I guess if drugs were fully legalised in sport then I guess you'd have a perverse albeit dishonest level playing field.

However, it's performance enhancing drugs you've alledgedly been involved with. As such we're not talking about hard core recreational drugs (note I'm pro-legalisation of cannabis at least for medicinal reasons). As such, unless it's been on a large scale then a suspended sentence sonds about right provided you have a previously clean criminal record.

I agree with other posts above that proceeding with postgraduate study will show the judge upon conviction that you are trying to sort your life out. You've more chance of a suspended sentence if guilty, you proceed to plead guilty and express remorse for your crime. This I say having also done jury service.

As regards mentioning the crime, you are innocent until proven guilty thus you're under no obligation to mention it until convicted.

My one reservation is if you go to prison, you are denying a student a place who can complete the PhD without interruption, especially if funded. Would you not be better to consider the option once you are released? If your sentence is only 6 months, a suspension of studies might be possible depending upon the University's attitude towards your crime. However, once sentence is passed then if a prison sentence is handed down then there will be a second wave of publicity the Universty might not be able to ignore. I have seen on a few occasions how Universities like to distance themselves of uncomfortable situations. An unsuspended prison sentence gives a University the excuse to make a swift, clean break with any affected person.

Sorry to sound hard, but I feel honesty here gives greater clarity.

Ian

Can someone grab this paper for me?

Put simply, I was involved with this a few years back with alot of material taken from my PhD work and that from my two predecessors. However, I note it's been upgraded with an extra author added.

I would like to have a glance to see what has changed, however, not being in academia now I can't download it.

Much appreciated,

Ian

It's a while since I've called by here. Straight up, you're in a field where "Dr." has some value and gves an air of expertise. Without it, you may well hit a glass ceiling.

I'd personally continue unless other financial, relationship or family issues mean otherwise.

Ian (Beefy)

Can anyone obtain the following paper for me? Can they PM me if so and I can pass my e-mail address to them.

Thanks,

Ian

So far, the loans are for STEM students without research council funding. So far...



As long as there is no reduction in research council funding, it will be another option although not a brilliant one. Anyone taking the loan option will have to top up their income by lab and lecture work, or other part time work and more so than research council-funded people.

However, there was a mutter from a government official about bringing different funding terms into line with each other last year. Might it be that the fees may be paid in the future but the stipend part may instead be a loan in years to come?

However, I am anti-loan (undergrad as well as post-grad) and can't see why this money can't be used to create extra research council places.

It's some years since my stint, however, subjects like this raise my ire enough to post.

Ian

I was personally relieved to be finished after a hellish write-up period (due to a good supervisor wanting the thesis to be right) though surprisingly straight forward viva. Minor corrections, done in a week, submitted, over with, conferral letter in post.

I was on post-doc at the time and had gone for a walk one lunch time. It hit me "Now what do I do?" I found myself at a loose end and having to adjust from 12 to 16 hour days, t a more normal 8 or 9 hours a day. Whilst not immediately impacting upon me (a though that cam to the forefront a few weeks later once I'd had a holiday), there was having to look for another job once my then-current post-doc ended.

That "what next?" question hits most of us and we can find ourselves at a loss. The combined need for a rest, deciding what to do next with our lives and looking at our future options are often why many people post-PhD look for a quiet year (in the case of women who seem to recover more quickly) or slightly longer (in the case of men) in an easy post-doc or other employment somewhere.

What you are facing would be normal, however, there is the added complication of your bereavement. As you approach the end, you're suddenly finding to to breath and perhaps now grieve properly for your sister. I thus suggest once you finish, more than anything you need time to yourself to allow the grieving process to take it's course. I suggest a decent break without any pressures for this to properly happen, either by yourself or with close family members nearby.

Ian

"Chemistuk", the above from "Chococake" is good advice.

I see no reason why you would not be able to submit early and all Universities will have provision for this.

If you really feel you can;t stand being there any longer, ask if you can work from home, go on the sick or apply for a suspension, possibly writing up whilst on suspension when you are ready to face it. This will at least mean you are away from the University if they insist on your presence during write-up. I say this assuming you are on write-up phase and are finished all experimental work?

I'll add the write-up phase is normally a point that saps motivation and we've all been there wishing it was over with. That said, however you choose to get this stage over with I suggest the sooner you are able to (possibly with a holiday before you go back to it), the better for your health.

I note your rush is to find yourself in paid employment as soon as possible, even with some bursary money yet to be paid to you. Do you feel you should be earning and in work or is there some form of unintentional pressure pushing you in this direction (i.e. friends, family, peers who are already in work)?

If you've some of your bursary still to be paid, I'd take advantage of that.

I remember my mother was concerned about me leaving paid employment, however, as the company I left to do a PhD closed down 18 months later that well meant hope for her was dashed. Any idea of her son being in a safe job with a financial security and decent pension also disappeared with that.

Ian

This is something my attitude has hardened to over the years.

I know people have made the odd mistake or things we shouldn't have done and we're all human. If we learn from those mistakes, good. I raise my hands and say I'm definitely not perfect, however, knowing the mistake non-critical then rectifying it now would cause more harm than good.

However, I'm aware of an instance where a senior researcher has produced data showing the protective qualities of a coating system. However, a then-colleague of mine noticed the coating was "failing" at another location and he pointed this out to the senior researcher. The senior researcher indicated he only wanted results from the section of coating which continued to adhere to it's substrate.

The project was high profile. The intended use was power generation. I'm not sure to this day if the results have been taken at face value or another centre involved has tried to replicate the tests. I sincerely hope the latter as if this coating were to fail in service, it could lead to a premature, potentially catastrophic failure.

I'll add that the criticality may have been such, if I had the data and the information in front of me and I was able to prove the above then I would feel obliged to take action force the data to be retracted.

I'm sorry, but "everybody does it" is just not good enough especially if the application is critical.

Ian

No offence meant to Albatross here, however, I understand TreeofLife here and think she has a valid point. If you didn't spot the data was wrong before sending it, were you sufficiently sure of the data or have sufficient knowledge of what it meant or indicated? If you'd done the necessary background research and literature review, then you should, as a PhD candidate, had the knowledge to spot it was incorrect. Did your supervisor tell you to send data he knew (and logically you should have spotted) was incorrect?

However, in Albatross's defence, the supervisor / PhD candidate relationship requires a lot of trust and an assumption that the supervisor is a leader in his / her field. Thus Albatross may not have felt she had to question her supervisor's "greater" knowledge. It wasn't until my last year I was able to show one of my own supervisor's understandings of my data was incorrect.

Difficult.

Ian