Is a supervisor who takes more than a year to examine your manuscript a good supervisor?
I admit it. My current PhD supervisor is a very great supervisor when it comes to supporting me to explore new ideas and giving moral support to finish my PhD. The only thing that she seems to be lacking is the amount of time she takes to examine my written up manuscript/ thesis. I know every academician is busy with teaching and research responsibilities but for a supervisor to take more than a year to finish up examining a 40-page manuscript is kind of red flag to me. Of course she did apologize to me when she returned the examined manuscript to me which means she feels bad about it. But still it is unacceptable for me because I have already reminded her several times and gave her much time needed to examine the manuscript. Now she's offering to be my postdoctoral supervisor once I finish the PhD. Considering the amount of papers need to be published during postdoctoral study and the fact that my future tenure depends on how many papers that I would publish during postdoc, it's kind of a red flag for me.
Is a supervisor who takes more than a year to examine a 40-page manuscript a good supervisor?
That's odd. Was it a manuscript for publication where she would also be author?
That isn't a good attribute, but the other things about her sound good. Can you have a meeting where you come up with agreements on dates for drafts and dates for having comments back? It seems like if her feedback was more timely you'd be more or less very happy with her as supervisor?
Was the manuscript something central to moving your thesis forward, or something else you were working on? I'd find it very difficult to work with a supervisor who took that long with something I needed to get to the end of the PhD - who can afford a year-long delay to get something read? However, if it was something that you just wanted a second opinion on, it might not have been such a deal-breaker, although it's still concerning.
As Chickpea wrote, it is a really long time if this reading is something that is part of an essential PhD check or review. Past behaviour can be a relatively reliable indicator of future behaviour, although not not foolproof as people can and do change their behaviour and habits.
Is this a decision you need to make now? I ask this as I wonder whether you might wish to make this decision closer to submission time. If your supervisor's tardiness delays your submission date in any significant way, you may really wish to have a different postdoc supervisor. (Plus sometimes it is nice to work with a new person, irrespective of how well you get along with your current person. Just provides a different experience and perspective, rather than more of the same).
Best wishes with your decision and your project.
That's odd. Was it a manuscript for publication where she would also be author?
That isn't a good attribute, but the other things about her sound good. Can you have a meeting where you come up with agreements on dates for drafts and dates for having comments back? It seems like if her feedback was more timely you'd be more or less very happy with her as supervisor?
Yes, the manuscript has her name attached to it and she is the corresponding author. This circumstance is a telling that she can be quite nonchalant when it comes to research. I did have a meeting and sent her an email with Gantt's chart detailing when I want to have this paper submitted for publication so I can move on with another paper.
Was the manuscript something central to moving your thesis forward, or something else you were working on? I'd find it very difficult to work with a supervisor who took that long with something I needed to get to the end of the PhD - who can afford a year-long delay to get something read? However, if it was something that you just wanted a second opinion on, it might not have been such a deal-breaker, although it's still concerning.
Yes it was central to move my thesis forward as it was part of PhD research data. Thanks for your opinion. She did apologize to me for delaying my manuscript which is still good than nothing at all :)
Is this a decision you need to make now? I.
No, I still have a few months to decide
I did have a meeting and sent her an email with Gantt's chart detailing when I want to have this paper submitted for publication so I can move on with another paper.
This is an aside, but often it helps to work on more than one paper at once - once your draft is done for one to get onto another whilst waiting for the feedback. I guess you did this in the end anyway?
I find it rather odd. At least she apologised for being so slow. But still - if it is a pattern, then I would suggest that you try to come to a formal agreement about when to expect feedback before moving on to a postdoc with her. You could mention it as part of your own plan/development - as before with your gantt chart - but this time actually requesting that she agree to the plan (obviously there will be times when there are delays - but if she has agreed to a general timeframe then the delay should not be so major as that).
It is hard to broach things like this without appearing like you think you're boss. But at the end of the day, it is important for your research. I am lucky because my new supervisor is extremely on the ball planning and deadline wise. She herself suggested the agreements about when to expect feedback etc, and I am certain she will stick to them, as that is one of the reasons she is so successful frankly - she knows how to plan.
If this a general pattern rather than a one off then I think you need raise it (in a well thought out and sensitive manner - so as not to get her back up). You need to know that you can count on your supervisor for relatively timely feedback/not to delay your whole plan excessively. Otherwise, I think I'd be looking to move on.
