I used a section from my MA dissertation, introduced by a short brief which contextualised the writing. I also went through and edited it down, enriched some parts, added more secondary sources, etc. Several days is fine, :) you're right to invest the time and energy in editing it. (Mine was a qualitative analysis with discourse, which allowed for easy edits...not sure if quantitative MA section would be the same.)

Good question, there is no real format, unfortunately. From my experience receiving peer-reviewed comments to my papers as well as peer-reviewing others, I think there are definitely two ways that people choose: a) section by section or b) overall argument + strengths + areas for improvement (eg: what section can be drawn out more, further detailed or even deleted if not seen as necessary for the reader). I've always appreciated the latter method (b) for feedback, as I found it keeps the author's voice intact as well allows for the author to understand how the manuscript should feel like as a whole product.


These are the bad experiences I've had, (cue the 'reviewer 2 memes! lol) : too much of the reviewer's own work influencing the critique, 'I would have approached the topic this way...'. is terrible feedback and quite arrogant. Not saying you would do it, but it has made me really strive to be as constructive and helpful, yet respectful to the hard work that went into writing a paper when I peer-review. Also, it some just provided a generalised paragraph saying it is a great paper, but no engagement with the argument/data/implications, which made me feel like the reviewer didn't take sufficient time to read and try to find something to comment on.

Congratulations, by the way! It's an honor to be selected for peer review (especially at a top journal), and quite a challenging, yet fun experience.

I agree with TreeofLife, as the OP said they'd like to invite an experienced research to join (which I take as collaboration in the writing/editing process). Even though it's a blind peer review submission in the end, an experienced researcher will undoubtedly be able to strengthen the paper and point out any faults, which makes the peer review process much less of a headache and quicker through the pipeline for publishing. I don't see anything that you'll lose. It's also good for networking at conferences, as you'd gain some respect for publishing with someone who is already known in the field.

Each university has different scholarships, which are highly competitive. My advice is to narrow your university choices and look at the department's webpage (funding tabs are usually within the PhD program information). Potential supervisors also can tell you about the history of funding the in department (for example, the two I ended up applying to told me there was only one intl. funded position out of 20 applicants, but no guarantees for funding next year!) So vary your uni. choices. If you go for a uni. with less competition, you'll get more of a chance for funding, obv.

I do think the US has more funding options than the UK, but PhD program there is typically longer and there's more teaching work. You can also look at programs in Canada. If you have the time, it would not hurt to take the GRE so you can apply to a varied group of unis.

While I definitely understand that worry, I think we should keep in mind that the majority of supervisors do have our best interests, and you shouldn't feel the need to censor out some of your key messages. I'm guessing you're talking about implications of your analysis? If you give implications, then it's fair game for any one to explore further, it's like a 'gift-giving' tactic that is appreciated when there is a bit of brain freeze within the discipline, lol. It also highlights the importance of your own work, and that is why it is really a great idea to begin to fashion an article out of your thesis/dissertation as soon as you can, so if people use your implications as a jumping-off point the year after you submit, then you will be cited. Put your argument through blind peer-review and get it protected.

You can definitely publish without a supervisor, but they are in their position for good reasons. I would try to co-publish with their name second, as they know the process, the anticipated critique from the editors (which saves a lot of time), the counter-arguments, and know how to write effectively.

Wow, now you got me curious! I've never used sci-hub, so I'm learning quite a bit from this thread.
It seems that it is located in the deep web.
Hmmm...maybe we should just be aware of that if we are accessing through uni networks, even with a VPN? Can we get in trouble if caught? (I use a VPN at home, not sure what the regs. are with campus networks.)

Just an article on it, if anyone is curious.

Unfortunately, I don't think this forum is helpful for you. This issue must be solved through your department at the university, so you must contact them.

Hi Kahn,

It seems that you are taking the feedback quite personally, which may be stressing you out. My advice is to take a step back, remember that supervisors do know what they are doing in assessing methodology, for the most part. It may be helpful to schedule face-to-face meeting with her, as the impersonal critiques can seem a bit soul-crushing. In my experience, supervisors are usually quite helpful in meeting to discuss and points in the feedback that need clarification.
About the over-technical language: Sometimes it makes a piece feel overwritten and is difficult to read in one sitting, so think of it from a reader's point of view, remove your self from the writing in order to take a good, critical look. It's difficult to do, but really necessary, I found out. :)

Trilla, you provide a fascinating viewpoint that does show just how messy the publication business is, so not cynical at all! Very helpful, in fact. It actually helps clear up a personal experience that I had! My very first article was not sound, had terrible peer reviews (justified), but the main editor kept personally pushing me to publish it, just make quick corrections in order to get it out for a special issue. I did not feel confident, as the reviewers made some very valid points and felt like I needed to learn a bit more. In the end, it was reformed into a much better piece and I sent to a different journal, but I was always confused by why the main editor would be so forceful in publishing something that would've made me seem overconfident and irresponsible in research. Your post cleared up my confusion. Wonderful insight that will help us writers navigate the pressure of publish or perish.

Yes!

Goodness, that resignation was fast! I feel sorry for the articles that are in the pipeline for publishing, quite a clog with the resignation.

Honestly, if the the editor in chief's palms weren't greased by Gilley, then he made a big mistake, lol! I initially thought bribery was involved, and this makes it more suspicious. Such blatant lying about a double-peer review is very damaging to his career as an editor.

For the post-docs in my field (politics), they advertise a year in advance. So, the criteria usually states that you must have your PhD by the starting day (autumn 2018), and they do the interviews in winter 2017, and probably choose in early spring.

I think even if one states that you already must have your PhD, having a strong CV that includes some teaching and publishing may put you in line for consideration.

Good advice!

(Ah, I didn't know that first situation happens. I think I would feel definitely exploited somewhat if the supervisor didn't inform me, as it would limit the student's options for publishing something solo later on).

Sounds similar to mine for UK universities, only I think the interviews were only 30-45 minutes long, thankfully! Even though I rambled off topic for one, I still got an offer, so you probably did fine. The most important part is matching your research aims to the department strengths, which they have decided anyway by looking at your proposal/prior research paths.

Wait, I've never heard of this practice. Your supervisor wants to write a paper, using your theory, data, and analysis from your dissertation? Are you comfortable with that? I feel like she's taking advantage of your work in some way.

(Sorry, I can't help you on the question part, mine was just a hand-in and written feedback.)

Welcome :)