You don't need to publish to a paper but it looks good. I would focus on your Masters and getting as much out of it as possible. Publishing a paper during your Master's requires a bit of good fortune to do it one year, so I wouldn't worry about not publishing.

Hi pambam57,

I have never interviewed anyone and am engineering PhD student, so I am probably wrong. Though why are you so desperate to continue with your original project even though it is not working? I would say that most people change their PhD in some way due to various issues and their is no shame slightly changing your project due to unforeseen issues. My PhD has massively changed because the experiments were not working and I am now doing stuff that works seamlessly (mostly). Research changes depending upon the circumstances and I would think carefully if the results will be worth the effort in the long run.

The PhD tuition fees should include all of your supervision and enrollment. However, they usually don't include research expenses such as; equipment, stationary, printing, books, travel, conferences or any minor things necessary. You may have bench fees included your tuition fees to cover incidentals like that but you should talk with your uni/supervisor.

Don't worry, I justifiably got your joke.

Blame COVID!

Em89 and PhoenixFortune have given some really good advice. Though I would add that you can probably blame covid for all your slow progress as long as you show that you have a clear plan forward.

It sounds like you did harass your supervisor. If you did send an email saying that he "destroyed" you, that is both rude and aggressive. You may have felt justified but no-one deserves 7 angry emails. Reporting you is a bit of an extreme but you sent the emails all by yourself and you should not blame him for protecting himself from abuse. I am glad you are seeing a therapist. You must feel absolutely destroyed but life goes on and you can probably still earn your doctorate. I personally think you need to take a step back and think rationally about all this, removing all the emotion. You have realised yourself that you acted immaturely sending those emails, so please don't do anything rash without thinking about thoroughly.

Honestly, I can't say how this will affect you. I would try to apologise again in a few days and really grovel, so that he doesn't report you. Say something that you over reacted and that you have calmed down and don't blame him and would like his advice in future. I understand you blame him but if you stroke his ego enough he might forgive you and not report you. Being professional is a lot about putting personal issues aside and cold facing lying in order to work with people.

Hi Em89,

I am very sorry about the delay. I am so glad your shared your story and you managed to persevere through so much. It is so good to hear about happy endings against everything, it gives me hope at least. Congratulations Dr Em89 on passing!

That sounds like a stupid university rule but it is part of the rules. If it they are making you redo the viva, I doubt that your will pass as part of any complaint against them. You could possibly get a new examiner but from my limited experience, I have never seen someone appeal an R&R. It is sometimes better to just do the corrections and sit through another viva, they have at least told you what they are looking for this time.




Sorry to be rude but that is a completely valid correction. Also, I think that the more critical reviews have an inherently stronger voice. It isn't that big of rewrite if you have included all the relevant literature. Just go through the lit review, mentioning limitations of everyone else's work and praising the stuff your really like. Then occasionally point out contradictions between people and pick a side. You don't need to do super in-depth critical analysis of everything unless it is seminal to your work. As, as a reader, when a literature review lists/explains/discusses without any criticism , I don't know what to consider more/less relevant or what the research problem really is. So, if you already have the content adding some professional criticism is a really just a major edit. I understand you feel attacked but I would recommend talking through the corrections with someone to discuss how to fix each correction, as you may realise it is easier than you think.

Hi oongz,

Authorship is always an awkward topic. Authorship rules and customs vary between fields, and Academia Stack Exchange has a lot of good posts about authorship customs in different fields ( I seriously think half of their posts are about authorship). Though it is best to be open and honest with your co-authors about what you want. I personally would never argue over adding someone to my paper, only the position.

If they do any work on the paper, even rewrite 2 lines, they are a co-author. It is a bit annoying but the reverse is also possible. I am co-author on two papers for doing virtually no work except giving them samples I was going to bin otherwise. If you are a in a collaborative lab you could boost your publication count by "helping" out your colleagues.


Regarding the conference. Did you want to present your work at that conference? Does the conference require presenters to be first name authors? Jamie_Wizard is right supervisors usually present their students work as their own at conferences but give recognition and give away first name on the paper. I am currently writing a presentation for my supervisor on my current work so she can present it, while also writing the paper with my name first. So, if the post-doc is being considered to manage this project, they probably see the conference presentation as harmless. It is unfair that the post-doc is getting authorship for the conference but since when was academia fair or when conferences actually matter. I would forget about the conference but make sure that it is your name first on the paper.

I am glad you thought I was helpful, although I might be mistaken in my earlier comments. Em89 makes a really good point. A thesis can be subjective and you should pick careful which corrections to complain about. Some corrections can be minor and wholly subjective in which case it is better to just agree with the examiner and do the corrections. Also, if the corrections are vague you can ask for clarification on certain points from the examiners, so you have the ability to only do the bare minimum. You don't want to have to rewrite the entire thesis but there are always some corrections required.

From an external perspective, they want your opinion before they decide how to proceed. I know at my university, there is a committee that reviews all viva reports and their decisions. That committee has the power to change or ignore examiners reports if they think it is unfair/unrealistic. If you talk with the head of department and he agrees with you, then the committee or examination unit could change the official report to remove the more stupid corrections. It is probably easier for everyone if the corrections are changed at that point otherwise it might have to go through the official complaint process. I don't think they are trying to threaten you by giving your the examiners report early but trying to be proactive and solve this as fast as possible.



That happens all the time.



This is off topic but I submitted a journal paper were my supervisor kept suggesting we do some extra analysis before submission. I was adamant not to do it because the method was extremely time consuming and the method itself was dodgy. However one of the reviewers said that it was very important and so I had to do method in order to publish. I still don't think it was relevant but the paper got published and it was worth it in the end. Also, your supervisor and examiner can agree on the same topic without talking with each other.

They cannot do that. If you were to submit corrections and you state in the note to examiners that you did X, Y, Z to make it more clear they can't fail you for not doing it properly. You passed your viva, so they can't reassess the content.

Also, if you are worried about the internal examiner you can request that the external examiner assess the corrections. Most universities only require one of the examiners review the corrections and if you request that your external review them you can avoid your internal completely.

Wow, that is impressive. Most people find more errors but you shouldn't worry. If you find minor errors, it is perfectly fine to go into your viva with a list of minor corrections that you found yourself. Most examiners are happy if you point them out as it saves them time and you can pass with only typographical corrections.

I can completely understand the anxiety about waiting for something so important as this. The unfortunate thing is that it is out of your control and worrying now won't make your viva go any better. If you have been offered a tenured professor role so without a doubt you are capable. Your university would not give you tenure without thinking you are good enough to fulfil the technicality of getting a PhD. If your peers think you are good enough why do you think the external examiners will say otherwise? Examiners delay their reports all the time for a list of benign reasons as reading a thesis is rather time consuming. I wouldn't read into the delay as anything negative.

I think a good literature review tells both a good story introducing the topic/research question/problem while framing it inside the relevant literature. In order to do that, you can talk about anything topic you like in in as much depth and in any order. There isn't a set formula for what you should include, only what you think is relevant for your research.

That being said, it is good to start your literature review by writing in as much depth about each individual topic. Then you can make links between topics and determine the structure. It makes it a lot easier to determine what is actually relevant once you have a draft lit review that you can then edit and restructure.

I have never had counselling. Is it okay if I complete the survey anyway?