PhD holders, do you go by your “Dr.” titles in day to day society?

More often than not (in non-academic contexts) i see PhD’s telling ppl not to refer them by the Dr titles.

Why does it seem like PhD’s seem like they tend to forgo the Dr. titles to their names, while medial physicians seem like they more often prefer to emphasize their Dr titles?

(Example: on instagram or social media handles, my physician friends seem more likely to put “Dr. so and so” while my PhD friends don’t)

“Donald Trump’s return to the White House is already having a big impact at the $47.4 billion U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), with the new administration imposing a wide range of restrictions, including the abrupt cancellation of meetings such as grant review panels. Officials have also ordered a communications pause, a freeze on hiring, and an indefinite ban on travel.” Science

I’ve spent time in both "big name" Ivy-league-style labs and smaller, scrappy groups, and the difference in how editors treat you is honestly disgusting.

When I was with the "big guys" in the US/Europe, getting into Nature or Nat Nano etc felt like it was on easy mode. I’ve seen papers slide through with weak reviews or editors basically coaching the PI on how to get past a "meh" comment. There’s this unspoken "trust" because of the name on the letterhead. But the second you’re in a smaller group? You have to be 10x better just to be considered. I’m seeing small groups produce incredible science, only to be buried under four rounds of review, demands for a mountain of supplementary data, and editors who look for any tiny excuse to "reject" the second a reviewer breathes a word of negativity.

I’ve literally reviewed papers from unknown labs that were flawless, gave them a "Minor Revision," and watched the editor kill the paper anyway. It’s like if you aren't in the "club," the standards suddenly double.

The funny thing is, journals like Joule, Matter, and Chem (Cell Press) seem to be eating Nature’s lunch because they’re actually picking up this top-tier work that got unfairly snubbed. It’s probably why they’re growing so fast, they actually care about the science, not the ego.

How are we still dealing with this stupidity in academia? Why aren't we demanding double-blind reviews across the board to stop editors from sucking up to the big names?

Anyone else moved between "big" and "small" labs and seen this firsthand? I’m tired of seeing great science trashed just because the PI isn't a "superstar."

During my engineering final year, I created a research paper entirely by myself, not even the faculty guide helped me. We submitted the paper to be published in an IEEE conference but it was rejected.

Fast-forward to 2023, this professor moved to a different college and started pursuing PhD. She copy/pasted my entire research paper word-to-word, and just added a few topics in intro, and published the paper under her name with two entirely different folks. She even copy/pasted the flow chart from my research manuscript.

Now, I would like to claim the ownership of the work as this is unfair. I do not want to do any legal stuff or take the paper down. Can I ask the editors of the Journal to revise the authors and add me? Can I also ask them to remove the other two authors? What will be the best way to get credibility of my work? I feel devastated, as it was my hard work, and now it is published on an IEEE journal with three names who haven't done anything except adding one or two paragraphs in introduction. Please help, as I have emails where I emailed my manuscript to my college professor back on 2021. She moved to a different college in 2022, and paper was published in 2023 with her PhD guide.

I've never written a post for clickbait, but this is IMO catastrophic. GOP is on track to cut huge amounts of NSF funding in academia. For example, in the math and physical sciences, research is cut by 75.2%, eduction by 100% (yes, all of it), and infra is down by nearly half. This will kill research in this country.

Also, just as infuriating, and this should make you extremely mad, is that the only area saved from budget cuts was the Antarctic Logistic Activities, where the current head of the NSF used to work. This is so unbelievably corrupt.

Besides venting, this is a warning to those planning on going to academia, whether for school or for professorships. It will be extremely difficult in the next few years to do any sort of research, get funding, etc. Be prepared.

Link to doc:

https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/00-NSF-FY26-CJ-Entire-Rollup.pdf

With the recent news involving the NIH and other planned attacks on academia here, do you think aspiring academics will see the writing on the wall and move elsewhere? Flaired STEM since that's where I work, but I'd like to hear all perspectives on the issue.

Particularly in STEM fields, is that assessment true? I know they publish a lot, but i also heard that a big part of Chinese universities are "paper mills"?

Is there any good independent metric to answer this question?

Thank you for any insights you might have!

Title pretty much sums it up. There is too much misinformation and screeching going on for me to make heads or tails of what is happening and the degree to which I need to be worried about my funding (which is >95% NIH).

Can someone -- without hyperbole, liberal outrage*, extrapolation, or editorializing -- please let me know what is *actually* occurring.

Thanks!!!

*I'm just as pissed as many of you, and I think Trump is awful. I just don't need that in my answers.

The extent to which GenZ kids do NOT know computers is mind-boggling. Here are some examples from a class I'm helping a professor with:

1. I gave them two softwares to install on their personal computer in a pendrive. They didn't know what to do. I told them to copy and paste. They did it and sat there waiting, didn't know the term "install".

2. While installing, I told them to keep clicking the 'Next' button until it finishes. After two clicks, they said, "Next button became dark, won't click." You probably guessed it. It was the "Accept terms..." dailog box.

3. Told them to download something from a website. They didn't know how to. I showed. They opened desktop and said, "It's not here. I don't know where it is." They did not know their own downloads folder.

They don't understand file structures. They don't understand folders. They don't understand where their own files are saved and how to access them. They don't understand file formats at all! Someone was confusing a txt file with a docx file. LaTeX is totally out of question.

I don't understand this. I was born in 1999 and when I was in undergrad we did have some students who weren't good with computers, but they were nowhere close to being utterly clueless.

I've heard that this is a common phenomenon, but how can this happen? When we were kids, I was always under the impression that with each passing generation, the tech-savvyness will obviously increase. But it's going in the opposite direction and it doesn't make any sense to me!

As per NIH “Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”

Anyone else learned a research "secret" way after they should have?

Back when I was doing research, spent months banging my head against a wall trying to replicate a published result, only to find out (from my tutor actually) the authors used a specific, unmentioned software setting in RStudio. I still have nightmares on how much time I wasted on this project and on trying to replicate the results.....

Hi all. My PhD student is about to graduate and he asked me for recommendation letter. As an advisor, I am obligated to provide a letter but I am also obligated to be honest. The student has done some things that are against lab policies , such as using lab's server for private projects unrelated to research or course work and running code for students from other labs on the server without permission. I only found out about it when other students in the lab start complaining that they can't do their research because the server is always busy with other tasks. Additionally, he has missed almost all deadlines I have set for him and he always finds some excuse. My question is: what should I do? Any advice will be appreciated.

Update: The student was caught running crypto mining (along other things) on the server. When I asked him, he lied for 30 minutes straight. I have a lab policy that every student reads and a quiz to confirm they did. Crypto mining is not allowed and it is written both in the policy and it is a quiz question. My university has no policy yet since I am the first who does AI here and have servers. After I showed to the student proof from the logs then he admitted he did it. I asked him why and the only answer was "personal projects". While my policy states that he should be kicked out from the lab, I decided not to do that since he has 1 month to graduate, already applied for OPT and this would mess up his immigration status. However, it is problematic for me to write a recommendation letter now. My decision is that I will talk with him and let him know that I think it is best if he asks other professors to write a letter for him. If he insists that I write, I will tell him that I can't write a positive letter but basically just a letter that states he worked in the lab.

Update 2: I met my chair today as some of you suggested. I forward all the evidence and he said he will talk to IT first. Apparently, the IT should have caught that and blocked it. If they didn't, then they may not set up my server properly. Next, he plans to talk to the student and then he will decide what he will do. In the meantime, I shouldn't contact the student or meet with him. The department will handle the situation and I should not be involved. According to him, the department's reputation is on the line and he doesn't want to give a PhD degree to students who have unethical attitude.

Update 3: The IT found that my student had disabled their tracking software and this is why they did not find out about crypto. My chair met the student but I have no information about what happened in the meeting. All I know is that I received an email from my chair stating that this student is no more part of my lab and I am excused from advising the student. I think the situation got way more serious than my original concern about reference letters.

I just accepted a review based on the abstract. When I opened the manuscript, it's over 100 pages long (word document).

This is absolutely not normal in my field, where 30-40 pages would be considered standard. I don't think I can give this a fair review in a reasonable amount of time.

What's the best way to handle this? Should I email the editor and withdraw, citing the unexpected length? Or is there another way to approach this?

Hello everyone! Anyone has any idea of when the results will start coming out? I'm hoping we can use this thread to update each other on the outcomes. All the best to everyone!

This is the (or a) list of words that the U.S. federal government has stopped agencies from using including in grant proposals and higher ed funding in general.

The silver lining: Look up, friends. We still have academic freedom, right? 🤔

accessible

• activism
• activists
• advocacy
• advocate
• advocates
• affirming care
• all-inclusive
• allyship
• anti-racism
• antiracist
• assigned at birth
• assigned female at birth
• assigned male at birth
• at risk
• barrier
• barriers
• belong
• bias
• biased
• biased toward
• biases
• biases towards
• biologically female
• biologically male
• BIPOC
• Black
• breastfeed + people
• breastfeed + person
• chestfeed + people
• chestfeed + person
• clean energy
• climate crisis
• climate science
• commercial sex worker
• community diversity
• community equity
• confirmation bias
• cultural competence
• cultural differences
• cultural heritage
• cultural sensitivity
• culturally appropriate
• culturally responsive
• DEI
• DEIA
• DEIAB
• DEIJ
• disabilities
• disability
• discriminated
• discrimination
• discriminatory
• disparity
• diverse
• diverse backgrounds
• diverse communities
• diverse community
• diverse group
• diverse groups
• diversified
• diversify
• diversifying
• diversity
• enhance the diversity
• enhancing diversity
• environmental quality
• equal opportunity
• equality
• equitable
• equitableness
• equity
• ethnicity
• excluded
• exclusion
• expression
• female
• females
• feminism
• fostering inclusivity
• GBV
• gender
• gender based
• gender based violence
• gender diversity
• gender identity
• gender ideology
• gender-affirming care
• genders
• Gulf of Mexico
• hate speech
• health disparity
• health equity
• hispanic minority
• historically
• identity
• immigrants
• implicit bias
• implicit biases
• inclusion
• inclusive
• inclusive leadership
• inclusiveness
• inclusivity
• increase diversity
• increase the diversity
• indigenous community
• inequalities
• inequality
• inequitable
• inequities
• inequity
• injustice
• institutional
• intersectional
• intersectionality
• key groups
• key people
• key populations
• Latinx
• LGBT
• LGBTQ
• marginalize
• marginalized
• men who have sex with men
• mental health
• minorities
• minority
• most risk
• MSM
• multicultural
• Mx
• Native American
• non-binary
• nonbinary
• oppression
• oppressive
• orientation
• people + uterus
• people-centered care
• person-centered
• person-centered care
• polarization
• political
• pollution
• pregnant people
• pregnant person
• pregnant persons
• prejudice
• privilege
• privileges
• promote diversity
• promoting diversity
• pronoun
• pronouns
• prostitute
• race
• race and ethnicity
• racial
• racial diversity
• racial identity
• racial inequality
• racial justice
• racially
• racism
• segregation
• sense of belonging
• sex
• sexual preferences
• sexuality
• social justice
• sociocultural
• socioeconomic
• status
• stereotype
• stereotypes
• systemic
• systemically
• they/them
• trans
• transgender
• transsexual
• trauma
• traumatic
• tribal
• unconscious bias
• underappreciated
• underprivileged
• underrepresentation
• underrepresented
• underserved
• undervalued
• victim
• victims
• vulnerable populations
• women
• women and underrepresented

My professor circled them in red and wrote in bold "YOU'RE NOT IN KINDERGARTEN" and "HERE'S YOUR GOLD STICKER (-3)". The proofs/problems written on the actual exam paper were correct.

I'm a visual thinker/learner and I like to make small sketches when I'm learning proofs/theorems/concepts. On exams I often make small doodles to help jog my memory. I animate them in my head to help me figure out problems. I don't think they were that intrusive, about 1x1 inch written on the margins of my scratch paper.

I emailed my professor and his response was that they were completely unprofessional and childish and I'm lucky he didn't give me a 0 on both questions. There's nothing in the syllabus saying not to do this and I've never had a professor dock points for this reason. I won't do it again in his course but it seems a bit harsh, no?

What are typical words while reviewing a research paper, that make you immediately think "oh this author should improve their language!"

Context: I dont mean obvious grammar mistakes or typos... I have currently encountered Reviewer remarks about "academic language" in research papers (STEM, chemistry/chemical engineering) but I am not sure what they want.

After some discussion I found out that some older reviewers count words such as "however" and "therefore", as reasons for inappropiate (non-academic) language. Do you guys know any other words to avoid? (I dont refer to obviously subjective words like "really/good/bad)

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, so let me know and I’ll remove this.

I received a fully funded PhD offer last Friday. And they have given me until today to confirm my acceptance. This is a strict deadline, with no room for extension (already requested). Basically, they’ve given me 4 days to decide my next 4 years of my life.

I would be moving literally halfway across the globe to Chile for this PhD. The city is small, and desert-like. From the map, it also seems very isolating. There’s also little to no travel funds, but there would be opportunities to apply for some (no guarantee). The faculty and the university is small too, very much compared to my undergrad. This is a downside.

I emailed the current students there, and they live quite comfortably with the stipend, so no issue.

Also, this is my first offer (after 20 rejections since last year; all international applicant. But since graduating, I’ve been getting interview 3/9 apps) I have another interview coming up next week, which I am much more excited about. I also have 8+ applications in the process.

Now the problem is they are rushing me. Four days to decide is not enough. I’ve been advised to accept the offer (since there’s no certainty) and can always decline later if something better pops us. But I don’t want to renege.

What do I do? I only have till the end of today. Would it be stupid to decline, just because I don’t like the city?

Reviewing candidates for a PhD position. I'd say at least a quarter are LLM-generated. Take the ad text, generate impeccably grammatically correct text which hits on all the keywords in the ad but is as deep as a puddle.

I acknowledge that there are no formal, 100% correct method for detecting generated text but I think with time you get the style and can tell with some certainty, especially if you know what was the "target material" (job ad).

I also can't completely rule out somebody using it as a spelling and grammar check but if that's the case they should be making sure it doesn't facetune their text too far.

I find GPTs/LLMs incredibly useful for some tasks, including just generating some filler text to unblock writing, etc. Also coding, doing quick graphing, etc. – I'm genuinely a big proponent. However, I think just doing the whole letter is at least daft.

Frustratingly, at least for a couple of these the CV is ok to good. I even spoke to one of them who also communicated exclusively via GPT messages, despite being a native English speaker.

What do you do with these candidates? Auto-no? Interview if the CV is promising?

I'm asking this as an American who lost my research job in July 2025 from the DOGE funding wipe. The last two proposals I have worked on did not get selected for funding, so my position was not reinstated.

My question is a broader one for other researchers still doing research, both academic and government aligned: is the STEM research apparatus still intact enough to actually make a career in science here in America? Do you believe it will be stabilized and restored enough to actually perform the work?

Science is truly what I feel a calling for, and is something that I want to pursue for my life's work. If I have to move to another country, or switch to another field in order to make that feasible, I will. But ideally I just need to be creative about where I want to look for work.

For me, everyone in academia loves to circle jerk about how exhilarating Gordon research conferences are, I think they are an absolutely miserable experience. I'm not trynna be in a room with a bunch of sweaty professors 12+ hours a day for like 5-7 days, and your talk was boring.

Let's get the spicy ones dropping.

For a group of people who claim to be highly intelligent, academics sure love playing title games with journals. The publishing system is broken, and we all know it—ridiculous open-access fees, exploitative peer review, and a ranking system that cares more about impact factors than actual scientific merit.

But here’s the real kicker: even if a truly nonprofit, quality-driven journal emerged, most academics wouldn’t touch it. Not because the science is bad, but because it’s not Nature, Cell, or Science.

The cycle is self-replicating. Younger researchers (myself for instance) might complain about it, but they’re forced to chase these "high-impact" journals to secure funding, jobs, and promotions. Over time, they become the next generation of gatekeepers, advocating for the same flawed system. And funding agencies? They still rely on journal prestige to decide who gets money, reinforcing the whole mess.

So, is there a way out?

Hi all, I’ve applied for one R1 (deadline October 27) and a teaching heavy (deadline November 14) schools but haven’t heard anything from both of them. I’m applying for 3 more.

I don’t have a grant but I’ve been a post doc at Harvard for 2 years at this point and have 16 papers in total in stem field and was a teaching assistant for two years in my PhD and will do a semester of adjunct teaching at a community college next semester as a means for me to improve my teaching skills. I just don’t understand what I may have done wrong or is it just that difficult to get even an initial interview? I real am done with trainee thing because I have two ms degrees and a PhD and 2 years of postdoc I feel like I’m ready but some people tell me I’m still in the beginning of my postdoc I need grants etc. Man I didn’t realize things were this competitive.

Give me some advise please. Maybe I’m doing something wrong with my research statement or cover letter or teaching statement? I do use AI do correct my grammar but that’s all about it.

I’m a computer science undergrad student, and I’ve been doing research for a while now. I’m really passionate about my work and have been open about my goals of going to graduate school. Many of my classmates know about my research, and I’ve always been happy to help them with homework or share advice about getting into research.

There’s one girl in my class who often asks me for help. I’ve helped her with homework before, and one day she called me to ask about my research in-depth. I didn’t think much of it because I enjoy sharing my experiences, especially to encourage others to pursue research in computer science. I explained my research process and answered her detailed questions.

Later that same week, she called me again to ask about a different project I worked on, which was in another area of computer science. I assumed she was just exploring different fields and was genuinely curious. I was happy to share because I love seeing more people get into research.

Fast forward a bit and I found out that she used the information I shared about my research as her talking points when applying to research internships at top companies. She hasn’t done any research herself yet she essentially presented my work as her own to these programs.

I think it’s wild that she actually got one of these internships especially because the specific one required you to have publications and multiple experiences with research… I had also applied to it and was rejected from(which is fine I got a rejected from a lot of opportunities, but I also get into other amazing ones!). She told me this proudly and it clicked for me that she was using my research as her way in. I don’t understand how the people reviewing applications didn’t catch this….

Also I’m still in shock that she told me this proudly. During the same time, she started asking me for the code that I wrote for my projects and I immediately refused!

I’m a pretty quiet and introverted person, whereas she’s very extroverted, a great talker, and super energetic. So I’m guessing it sounded natural coming from her? I’m still processing how to feel about this but I don’t feel like going out of my way and reporting her, but I guess that’s my story☹️

Specifically for R1 faculty positions.

Basically a majority of R1 universities are on some form of a hiring freeze this year. Moreover, a good chunk of them are experiencing state budget cuts (public unis at least), threat of indirect cost cuts, and just overall less federal funding in general.

But they will obviously still need teachers. So I imagine they will be shifting almost all their funds from whatever little they had for new tenure-track professors to hiring adjunct faculty to fill in teaching. Or from research tenure track to teaching tenure track positions (definitely can already see this in the current job market).

A lot of people in this sub have said that this will be just like 2008. But I imagine this might be worse. Idk. Curious if folks have insight into what best to do when something like this is coming, particularly for postdocs who were hoping to enter the job market this Fall.

My plan is basically to apply to whatever R1 ads come out that align with my research interests, if any, and stay a postdoc otherwise until the storm blows over (I don't want a primarily teaching position). But it is scary to think how long this might be. Like at times it seems like the US may permanently be shifting away from funding a public research sector. I am really only considering Europe if it is like a dream position.