The problem is that she will probably want to publish some papers based on the research, which necessarily will have to be done in collaboration with the supervisor. The supervisor is probably manipulating the results for the purpose of getting them published, and if MissUCA goes along with it, she becomes complicit in fraud. If that blows up, her academic career is over.

So either she goes along and publishes the data the way her supervisor faked them, or she has to confront him.

Interesting - and I always thought an MRes is not a taught masters ...

Any masters student, irrespective of specific degree, should have at least one supervisor. After all, you even get one for your undergraduate dissertation. Other than that, it's up to the uni, I guess. I had two supervisors, a senior lecturer as the primary one and a professor and head of the division as the secondary one. I got most one-on-one support by the primary one, and we occasionally met with the secondary one to report on the project, to benefit from his wealth of research experience, resolve administrative issues, and simply to report on progress, since it was a research project in his division that he decided to fund etc.

But I did a research masters without a taught component ('MSc by Research'), so things are probably different for you.

As with any application, ideally you should highlight both - what they get out of it/why they should be offering you a place (your qualifications, skills, creativity, past accomplishments), and why you want to work at this specific place (your motivation).

As for finding more reasons to go to this specific lab than just learning new skills there - do they have any special equipment you could use? I knew someone who did a lab project in another country because she needed a special piece of equipment for her PhD research that was not available anywhere in her country (or maybe not for her field/purposes). Does this lab you are interested in have anything for you to play with that your home lab doesn't? ;)

The question is why you wouldn't apply to the PhD program with your MA, given you say you had a high score? Do you feel like you need additional preparation and/or is your MA in a somewhat different field, and you want to use the MRes to transition into the new field?

Of course an MRes can be a strong point during a PhD application, as it creates a track record of research (maybe you even get papers published or into review before applying for the PhD). But another valuable asset would be the connections you make at the new university. You'll meet the faculty there, work with some of them (especially your supervisor/s) and can make a positive impression that may lead to them offering you a PhD anyway, if they are happy with your performance.

As for guarantees - there are none, unless the MRes and PhDs are officially linked, and you perform satisfactory in the MRes.

I find it mildly disturbing that you keep going around telling people (in this thread and in others) that no one should be doing a PhD without having obtained a 1st.

I got a high 2:1 in my undergrad because I didn't do all that well in 3rd year (dissertation was a 22/23 though), then I got offered a research masters with tuition scholarship during an internship without even applying. I passed my viva last month with minor corrections, and am now working with my supervisors to turn it into two papers. I will start medicine soon, but am also considering a PhD instead from next year on because I've really come to like research (problem is I prefer a field related to but still substantially different from my BSc and MSc, so need some preparation first).

And you want to tell me I'm unsuitable for a PhD because I didn't get a 1st at undergraduate? My supervisors certainly didn't think so, and neither did the examiners during my viva (they were quite eager for me to publish and mentioned they'd have loads of research for me if I did medicine at our uni).

The only reason I am writing about myself here is as an example to demonstrate that your exclusively grade-focused mentality is counterproductive. Some people are great at research projects but not particularly good at memorisation for exams - they can still make good scientists. Some people chose the wrong undergraduate and were perpetually bored in many modules, leading to suboptimal grades, but they may discover a field they love later on and still excel in it - again, who's to say they shouldn't do a PhD? You?

Irrespective of how experienced or inexperienced your particular supervisor may be, for any research degree there should be two supervisors, a primary and a secondary one. At least that's how it is handled at my uni (I am about to finish an MSc by Research, just like you). In addition my uni has independent committees that regularly meet with each postgraduate research student to monitor their progress and resolve issues that you may have with your supervision.

I don't think it is much of a problem that your supervisor just finished their PhD, especially considering you are 'only' doing an MRes, not a PhD. The same went for my supervisor, who despite being relatively senior had never been a primary supervisor before (he is a clinician who went into academia relatively late).

But IF your primary supervisor is lacking in certain areas (e.g. knowing about organisational stuff), then there should definitely be a second point of contact for you, like a second supervisor.

I am conducting a systematic review and have run all my database searches (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL etc.) I am now in the process of searching for grey literature, which there seems to be an endless ocean off.

The problem is that I find it difficult to locate a large number of relevant conference proceedings. E.g. I have decided to check conferences and symposia run by e.g. the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry etc., but I struggle finding out about their conferences. The RCP website has a small list of their annual meetings run since 2007, but that's it. I am pretty sure they have already had conferences way before 2007, but cannot find any information on them on their website. The same goes for other organisations in the field of my research - I'm lucky if their websites have any sections containing any conference proceedings at all.

Does anyone have any advice about finding such proceedings in their entirety, i.e. all of them for every year? Otherwise I will probably have to resort to contacting the organisations directly ...

Any paper the search produced. Publication type depends on their search strategy - if the search engine allows for filtering out certain types, and the authors decided to do that, then those will not feature in the results, or in very small numbers.

You need to check their search strategy to find out.

Having silently followed this thread so far I'm gonna throw myself in the line of fire now and admit that I'm with Dunham and find many of the reactions to his post pretty ridiculous.

The OP wrote:

"My experience as a woman is that there isn’t an equal playing field for us. Society just takes, takes, and takes from you. We get little support be it on the home-front or at work. It is easier for the guys to progress at work because they get a lot done for them – dinner, laundry, baby-sitting - all they have to do is focus."

In reaction to that Dunham

a) clearly acknowledged that there are a lot of inequalities left, and that we have to continue to work on reducing them.

b) was in no way aggressive or hostile.

c) simply criticised the OP's rather simplistic view that science and research are a man's world and that a man gets everything served to him on a silver platter as long as he just focuses.

I wouldn't say I find it insulating, but it is definitely a bit of a childish view. I have to admit that a) I am a man (definitely a disadvantage in this discussion as it somehow tarnishes ones credibility on the issue) and b) I am not yet at the stage in life where I and my peers marry, get children etc., so I cannot recount a lot of first hands experiences of relationships and research. But I know from my surroundings that in the year 2016 a lot of couples actually share housework, share caring for the kids etc.

If you're a woman in science and you feel you are being weighed down by responsibilities while your partner is getting ahead, then that's a problem with your relationship, not research. Tell him to do the dishes, tell him to watch the kids some days a week and get on with your research.

Haven't been able to get the article for pd1598, so he still requires your help ;)

I am about to start a fully funded MRes in Neuroscience and the project (focused on treatments for opioid abuse) will include a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence before the actual quasi-experimental part.

My institute would like to get me trained up for that and send me on a course. I initially planned to just take one at my own university, but my supervisor and most people in the institute seem to have a very strong opinion that a lot of training on systematic reviews out there is basically ****, delivered by people who think they are qualified to do it but actually aren't :D They want me to get trained to a high standard (the word 'Cochrane level' was thrown around) and my task is now to find a good course, preferably one that lasts several days, and offers decent value for the money. I have found three so far (York, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and Nottingham), but have no idea which one is best.

So I would be grateful for any suggestions on good courses that include content on both systematic reviews and meta-analyses :)

Not an Aussie and currently in the UK, but for some reason my past exchange university (ANU) forgot to cancel my access to their online system so I can still use the remote proxy to get into the library system.

So if ANU has access to the SMH archives, then I could probably help you out ;)

Also, have you tried Trove (National Library of Australia)? They seem to have a digitised collection of the SMH archives.

Tried through my Scottish uni and former Australian exchange uni - no luck here either, sorry.

Are you being sarcastic? Because I honestly can't tell :D

Wow, that sounds pretty depressing. Wherever you look the neurosciences are described as an emerging field, and then researchers are treated like this ...

Post-graduation medical training in Germany can all be done in the same hospital, there's no need to move around (unless you want to). Shift work is not the greatest, but can be avoided in some specialties, plus one can always become a GP.



If I did medicine I would work as a physician instead of doing research. Adding a PhD to a BSc and medical degree would just be a bit much I think :D With the level of commitment that medicine requires it would hardly be possible to do a PhD alongside, and when I graduate aged 32 I need to start earning money rather than spending another 3-5 years in education.

Thanks you two for your honest assessment.