I think it depends a lot on the field, quality of the journal/book and the research itself. In science, journals are usually better for original research and book chapters are better for reviews. The two mediums have different audiences, as a journal is usually more technical and can have limited scope while book chapters should be more accessible and general in scope. Also journals are more likely to get cited. Though a chapter does look good on a CV and harder to get (in my field at least). It is hard to give hard advice but I think journal articles are usually safer.

I may have worded it badly but in some fields co-authors cannot block entire publications. The supervisor should be considered as a co-author, as I said, and offered the opportunity to review/change the paper. However if he is unable to review or add to the paper, he should still be considered a co-author. As he did supervise the research during the PhD and most likely contributed. Simply removing his name because he could not review the final form is discourteous. In my field, co-authors are sent all the drafts and approval is assumed unless they explicitly state otherwise. This may vary between fields and may not be applicable to the OP.

Never worked with demographical data or that field but I would initially publish one paper in a high impact journal. Once it is accepted/published you can reference that methodological and that data set (boost your citation score). The other two papers will cite the original and there will be no plagiarism issues. I don't think submitting three papers simultaneously together is a good idea, but I could be wrong.

Unless he owns the data you can publish without him. Though he did contribute to the work by supervising you, so you should add him as an author. This is a grey area but unless he specifically doesn't approve, I would add his name regardless of him reviewing the paper.

I would apply for PhDs anyway but aim to pass the written test ASAP. There is nothing stopping you starting the applications before you pass.

Honestly, writing skills are fundamental to a PhD and your experience doesn't negate you missing an essential skill. Supervisors do not want to proof read your work for grammar mistakes and they would take a less skilled researcher if it saved them time. So just pass the test.

Honestly, I don't think you will get revise and resubmit. Your statistics are wrong but the hypothesis, qualitative analysis and data are right which counts for something. You have just interpreted the data wrong based of the wrong application of statistics. It sounds like major corrections to me.

Historical stock prices are hard to find for free but a lot of buisness news sites quote the open/close of IPOs in the daily briefings. If you have the time you could trawl through them and manually find them.

The two reviewers may have very different opinions/decision and the editor wants a third opinion.

I am not an expert in ethnography at all. If your work doesn't agree with established theory, is it your work that is wrong or established theory? If you can defend your work, you can say that there is a flaw in established theory that needs to be reassessed. New theories are generally found when new work cannot be explained by old theory. I know it is bold to propose a new theory but if you are so fundamentally opposed make an argument against them instead of struggling to fit the data to the wrong theory.

I know this is a bit old but I had an interesting conversation today with someone similar.

The person was also travelling and collecting data in a high risk area but was able to get permission to travel. There was a special process that they went through via the legal team and pro-vice-chancellor to get approval. Basically they said, they had experience in the region, research was desperately needed on the topic and it fitted with the universities goals. There was a lot of paperwork and the person signed a document waiving the university of responsibility but it was possible. It may vary between universities but some do have obscure paths for high risk trips abroad.

PS: English University

I was in an incredibly similar position once. I did a placement year between 3 and 4th year, where I had the option to do my masters project (meant my final year was quite empty). I did a project that been done by someone a few years earlier. Literally, I took his work as a basis and set about improving it even further. I did most of the work on my own time (late night/weekend) but the company supported it as it was free work. I did marginally improve the process (nothing spectacular) but I fully answered a lot of small questions that were were left after the previous project. The company actually liked it as I documented a lot of old material and they could use chunks of dissertation as a reference.

If someone has already done it, can you improve it further or implement it at your location? The dissertation doesn't need to be groundbreaking but only have a tiny shred of originality in which to showcase your skills. You could approach the project in a different perspective or have slightly different goals with regards to your location. Though with my supervisor he didn't really care about the project itself but as long as the project was possible and had enough substance to get me a good grade. If your new boss prefers a new project, just check that there is enough substance to write a full thesis on it, otherwise it should be fine.

How long do you need to finish? You have been doing the PhD for a long time and the university gets assessed by how many people pass on time. It is in the university's interest for you to complete the PhD, so you should try and convince them that you can. When asking for the extension and due consideration, I would have a plan or Gantt chart saying how you intend to finish.

I was just asking as language can be a big barrier and going to the best university possible without knowing the language, might be a bad idea. Some countries have far higher English skills (cough Netherlands) than others which might make you PhD a lot easier.

Do small literature reviews for both and see if there any gaps in the knowledge. A PhD is at least 3 long years and you really want a project you are interested in. I would spend the time exposing yourself to as many ideas/areas possible and find what actually interests you.

Congragulations!

Hi unknown,

You are right a low 2:1 without mitigating circumstances doesn't look good on an application. You sound like you are already defeated by saying everything you are not. What sets you apart? If you can answer that you could sell yourself in an interview. Some departments want motivated people over grades and if you have some relevant skills you might get something. It costs you nothing to apply, right?