My advice would be to find some departments that specialise in the area you are interested in, and contact professors by email to ask if they have opportunities available and if you could visit the lab or get involved (but this might not be easy during the covid situation). In my experience, it is always easier to find opportunities when you have already established a relationship. In addition, you could look for PhD opportunities that are already advertised and then enquire for more details. I would say go for it - nothing to lose by getting some more information and seeing if you can find an opportunity. I am not in your subject area so my advice is general.

Hi!

I honestly don't think you need worry. The PhD is a higher level degree than the undergraduate one and so shows your capability more. I think most people looking at your CV would know that intuitively, even if they don't know the details of your undergraduate degree and why you didn't do as well as you might have at the time.

Hope this helps
Tudor

Often the supervisor will write up the paper and then be first author (sometimes when the student has already left).

If you like working with that professor then I would very strongly suggest that you stay there and just learn to tolerate the chaos and the things you don't like. It will be tough as it sounds like it is getting under your skin, but there are two advantages I see. One is that you work well with the professor and this is possibly the most important thing one can have during a PhD, and there is no guarantee that you would get this again if you switched lab (unless you already know where you would go and you know that you work well with that person too). And secondly, learning to tolerate an irritating situation will probably reflect well on you and help you build more character (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger). I hate saying this as I can imagine how irritated you feel from the way your message is written. But I do think it is worth it!

That's great. I love hearing about how things are almost back to normal now. I have been quite cautious and so it was a big deal the other day when I went out for a meal - first time since Jan/Feb time. It was great!

I didn't find any checklist for a review paper. I am thinking I will probably develop my own now that I have done this review.

I did find the following links useful in addition to the one you recommended:

The second link was really useful as it had different researchers sharing their experiences about how long they usually take, any strategies they use, etc.

I think it is good that multiple reviewers are invited, as there were a couple of things (not vital or pertaining to inaccuracies) I didn't bother suggesting as I felt I'd made enough comments. I thought oh well, maybe another reviewer or the editor will suggest them if they think they are important...

That's interesting. Most in my field (at least the ones I am familiar with) are double blind. I've finished it now, and yes, it didn't make a difference. Although it was interesting. I'm discovering that some people seem to submit more draft versions of a manuscript as opposed to highly polished ones. Maybe it is to get a feel if the manuscript would be accepted in a particular journal with revisions. Or maybe it is using the peer review process more as a useful earlier stage of writing feedback mechanism rather than as a final gate-keeping plus feedback one (which is how I have tended to see it).

That might explain why you notice that experienced researchers miss important things.

Also noteworthy, it isn't blinded, as in I can see the authors' names. Never had that before but I just checked and this journal doesn't operate double blinded reviews. So the reviewer can see the author but they can't see us. I find it odd somehow, even though it is the journal's policy. It isn't influencing me but it is weird that I actually know the authors for sure (often you can guess anyway but still).

Thank you. Have emailed. Will see what response is. I am part way through it now but would prefer it if they could add page numbers. Man it is hot today.

I don't think I know what you mean unless you give some examples.

In my experience, just be yourself, as you always have been, and people will soon see that you are normal (or as normal as you were before).

Also maybe just explain that a PhD is just another degree or course - like a masters (sorry anyone who finds that offensive, but that is how I see it).

I should add... it's like a 40 page review so unless I am missing a trick this is going to be a bit of a nightmare when it comes to referring to certain places.

It seems a little bizarre that the journal for which I am reviewing a paper doesn't show line numbers... is it just me or is this incredibly unhelpful? Or rather, is there something I am missing here... some easy way to refer to a line of text without having to count the paragraphs or quote whole sentences...?

I think I am getting a little grumpy in the sweltering heat!

Yes that's true. I think I'd be tempted to go for the short paper though, if your priority is to get a paper out of this fairly quickly and in a great journal.

If you see it as a larger paper then put the work in, but you'll have to accept (as you're already aware) that it might not go in that journal. Do you have back up journals and would you be happy for it to go in one of those (hopefully) if you put in the work and it isn't accepted in your first choice?

I just took a look and realised that checklist is for reviewing empirical papers. I am looking for a similar checklist that can be used for reviewing a theoretical/conceptual review paper. I'm googling and will share on here if any luck. Please let me know anybody if you have such a checklist! Cheers!

Amazing - thank you! I'll check this out later. Hope you are enjoying the sunshine. Are you back on the tennis courts? :)

Hi there

Does any one have any experience of reviewing a review paper? And if so do you have any advice?

It might seem like a dumb question, but I don't think there is a great deal of training or support on doing peer reviews (I've even come across a paper about this). I imagine it is something one gets better at with practice, but still there should be some guidance on it in my opinion. I've done one or two reviews, but not of actual review papers. Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks

Haha, very good!