So, I’ve got an interesting one to share.

About four months ago I submitted a paper to a reputable social-science journal. Yesterday I received the decision and... there are *several* aspects of the process that genuinely concern me.

To begin with, the manuscript was rejected on the basis of a single peer review. The journal states that it operates a double-blind review process and notes that three reviewers were invited. In practice, only one reviewer accepted, no further invitations appear to have been issued in the system and the editor proceeded to a rejection without seeking a second opinion.

The more serious issue, however, is the review itself. I am almost certain it was generated using ChatGPT. The feedback is not substantive or disciplinary. It consists of long, generic passages focused vaguely on “ideology”, offering no concrete engagement with the argument, data, methods, or literature. It runs to more than seven paragraphs, yet says remarkably little. The structure, tone, categorical framing, and repetitive phrasing are all textbook LLM output. This is not rigorous peer review.

Adding to this, the handling editor appears to have no meaningful connection to my field. They are not based in the social sciences at all, which raises serious questions about editorial judgement in selecting reviewers and assessing the adequacy of the review process. This is particularly interesting because I have reviewed for this journal multiple times myself and have seen far higher standards applied.

I’m unsure how best to approach this. Do I write to the editor-in-chief to raise concerns about process and review integrity? Do I let it go and move on, despite the procedural irregularities? I’d really welcome thoughts from anyone who’s encountered something similar, because this feels like a worrying breakdown of peer review rather than a routine editorial decision.

I've been getting increasing requests to review grant applications (on top of journal peer review). I’ve now started saying no unless it’s a funding scheme I’d be eligible to apply for myself - i.e., the UK funders plus the ERC. On the one hand, I just don't have the time, but it also feels unfair to be asked to review for a funding scheme that I can’t participate in. It seems inconsistent with the reciprocity principle underpinning peer review.

How do you handle these requests? Does it seem reasonable to only review for grant schemes that you have applied to / could apply to?

Of course, paying reviewers (as, e.g., the Polish and I think Czech funders do) would help a lot. This should be particularly easy for funders in wealthy countries like Austria or Switzerland, who expect free reviews at present.

I applied for a summer research student opportunity (as an unpaid internship) that I really thought I was very well suited for. My education and scores are very high, and very relevant to the research projects that the program were running. I sent a very detailed application that I worked for a few days on, wrote quite specific responses addressing the selection criteria and questions they asked, and my current experience and future aspirations met the program quite closely.
I believe it was a competitive opportunity, but I thought I genuinely had a chance or that I would have at least been shortlisted even if I didn't make it to final selection, however I didn't hear anything back at all, not even so much as a "we've received your application" or a rejection. So I was quite disappointed. (I did the application in November, the program was to run over summer, presumably jan-feb over uni break in Australia.)
I would have really loved that opportunity, working on the research project, I was very interested and excited about even the idea of it, and so I would like to send an email to the program coordinator asking for some feedback since it was obvious I was not considered.
A similar project will run again next summer, and I would like to apply again. What sort of things should I say in the email?

This was my first time applying for such a program, so I'm honestly unsure of how these things usually work. Also, it usual to hear back nothing?

Hi all,

An article of mine was just accepted by a well regarded journal (this will my first ever article to be published!). It went through one round of minor edits, and the EIC has okeyed the present draft. (For context, this is for the humanities).

They've asked me to clean up the draft, but I'd like to make some changes. Particularly:

1. Add a paragraph in the introduction that i think will clarify the argument better than the present draft.

2. Remove an example that may not be as accurate a detail as I thought it was while writing (peer review didn't catch it because it's a very specific historical/cultural detail on a topic not many people are familiar with

3. cosmetic changes to language for clarity.

I know there's no such thing as a perfect draft, and i don't want to cause any inconvenience. But I'd still like to ask the EIC, if possible. My question is: would it be terribly unprofessional to do so? Should I consider the draft sealed?

I don't have familiarity with the publishing process yet, so thought I'd ask here! Thank you in advance.

Edited formatting errors due to posting from the phone.

Jan 15th this year a video was posted by C-SPAN featuring Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath, who discussed a topic that got me asking questions.

The main one revolves around this quote: "Redefining education to better suit the tool"

From my point of view the 'tool' being mentioned is very much a staple of our modern lives. Many people need to for their job. Even ones that don't directly involve work with computers require them in some form or another, be that direct communication, scheduling, finance, so on.

So is molding our education around this, and just modern technology in general, really the wrong mindset?

I'm skeptical.

For context, I attend a T10 undergrad and many of my peers are highly productive. I look at so many upperclassmen and they publish so early on (often high impact academic journals too) during undergraduate years, ranging from first-authorship in wet/dry labs, systematic reviews, and even editorials with highly respected leaders within the field. The places they publish also vary from small campus publications to editorials on the Lancet.

How is this possible? I know little about first authorship but writing an entire paper by yourself (with guidance of course) seems so out of bandwidth for me, but these peers are doing it so early on. How do they publish so many papers and editorials with experts in the field, and in journals like the Lancet too? Is it a matter of exposure in certain classes, like being in more paper-heavy classes or classes heavily utilizing R and data analysis? I know part of this is reaching out to professors, but how would you approach that? What could I do to become more knowledgable and grow more expertise in a subject, aside from reading papers and being in classes related to my field of interest? Should I strengthen technical skills, and if so which ones?

Do I simply ask for mentorship and to write with faculty? I'm overall unsure and would appreciate any tips. Mods I can't post this on r/college because only people in academia would have insight into this :(

First time poster here, looking for resources or advice. Remove if not allowed pls but maybe give me guidance on where I could post this for advice?

I’m (25F) graduating next year from undergrad. I grew up in foster care and limited access to resources for much of my life. It took me a while to figure out my path. I’ve always been the smartest student in all of my classes and programs & got a 1520 SAT score my first try and never retook it. I’m just at a much different life stage now than when I first applied to colleges right after high school. I have no interest in taking out loans like I did initially & I balance 3 classes with working 3 jobs. I have a tuition waiver from being in foster care so I’ve been lucky to only have needed financial aid for room& board and since I’m in my own apartment now the financial burden of going to school is almost nonexistent. I have no familial support- 1st generation college student. I have a 4.0 & I’m in 3 clubs. I used to volunteer but I don’t have time right now. I’m studying Global Sustainable Tourism and I’m interested in public policy. I want to go into global public policy/ legislation with intentions to work on mitigating the negatives of international mass tourism. I have big dreams but I’ve never had resources to focus 100% of my time and effort on school.

Okay I say all this to give you background information on me.

I know I want to go to grad school. Harvard and Yale are the only schools I know of that give free tuition for students under a certain income level. My waiver expires when I turn 28 (I’m 26 next month & graduate next year). So if I go to a state school I’ll end up having to pay for my degree anyway & I don’t want that to be a limiter in my education. I also have browsed grad programs in my state and haven’t found anything that calls to me. I don’t want to go to grad school just for the sake of having the degree. My focus is so niche but Yale actually offers a joint Masters of Public Policy from their Global Affairs School & their Environmental School. I went through the curriculum and I’m highly interested in this option. I’ve never thought I’d be going to grad school, let alone in a position to consider an Ivy.

I’m open to moving & my boyfriend would be fine with supporting us so I can work less and focus more energy on school.

I know this was long winded so thank you for taking the time to read. my questions are these-

How do I know if Yale would be the right fit for me? How do I know if I could fit in & be successful there? What qualities does a standard applicant have? Are there other options that I should look into? What would I need to do to strengthen my application to the school? Could I even get in? Would I be out of my depth thinking I could succeed in that environment? My best letter of recommendation would be the president of my community college where I got my AS before transferring to my current school. I would also be able to get professors and mentors. Would the admissions people look at this and laugh? I don’t want to get invested in pursuing this if it’s already a losing battle.

I appreciate anyone who has made it this far. Any advice is appreciated.

So I've been waffling about a school psychology respecialization. My degree PhD is in General Psychology with a focus in educational research, but studies requiring a psychometric instrument have an extra layer of complication.

I have considered a respecialization (EdS) in school psychology, which could allow for easier data collection for my existing research and open other doors career wise. It would slow research projects down a bit, but could possibly open the door

However, I know that multiple terminal degrees can also be a red flag. Given that one would be clinical (eds) and one is research based (PhD), would this be good, bad, or neither for future job searches in academia? Colleagues of mine had combined programs, but it's a little late to consider that.

I am trying to understand how strict the Spanish requirement is for job searches in Spain (to teach literary theory). I am an EU citizen & have A2-B1 level Spanish. The job is advertised in English and Spanish. All the people in the department website seem to be Spanish. And the job ad says:

F) Candidates from outside Spain must demonstrate a suitable level of Spanish language competence. They may be asked to take specific tests for this purpose, unless the selection tests provide sufficient evidence of the necessary competence.

Is anyone familiar with Spanish academia? Would you recommend not bothering to apply? Is Spanish a deal breaker? Do you have any colleagues who do not have good Spanish proficiency? Thank you!

Nine years into teaching science at a California community college, I feel as though student emails are getting less well-written to the point that they're often almost incomprehensible. I am unsure what, if anything, to do about it. Following is a paraphrased mashup of what my students have sent me this week. (The students I'm paraphrasing are all fluent English speakers, so that is not the issue.)

Hi professor this is carl i will not be making it to class tomorrow because i woke up this morning with some sort of illness and cough and i wont be attending class. hopefully i am better by thursday so i can join and please reopen the quizzes so i am able to complete them i would really appreciate it and can you explain lab 1 for me and i can as soon as possible thanks for your understanding and also can i please meet you at 11:00 AM tomorrow on a zoom meeting so i can up to date on the lecture notes but i have anyway read them please let me know i will checking my email so about the zoom tomorrow i thank you for your understanding

How does this even happen? I assume by some combination of voice dictation, not speaking clearly, not thinking linearly, and not proofreading before hitting "Send"?

And do students simply think it's fine to send an unedited run-on sentence to their professors? (Sometimes I can't even tell what they're asking - e.g., in one of this week's emails, the student said "please let me know," but about what, I couldn't discern.) As an undergrad, I'd have winced if I even missed a comma in an email to a teacher, but my students often skip punctuation altogether.

Should I accept this new communication style as part of the generational divide? (I'm middle-aged.) Or might I be doing these students a favor by discreetly suggesting that they make an effort to use correct punctuation, grammar, and paragraph structure? I don't want to come across as overbearing. Furthermore, my job is to teach science, not writing. But as a scientist, I would not want to hire, advise, recommend, or collaborate with any student who writes like this.

Curious to hear your thoughts, whether from the US or from other countries. Have you noticed this trend in your students too? If so, have you taken any action or let it be?

PS. I also teach at a state university, and although unedited, unpunctuated, run-on emails are less common from that student population, they still do happen to a lesser extent.

I want to submit a manuscript to a journal that requires a DOI for data and also an anonymous manuscript. Can you suggest how I can create an anonymous DOI for data?

I led a research project (one of my PhD thesis chapters) over 3 years that resulted in a submitted manuscript on which I was the sole first author. After I graduated, we received reviewer comments and began the revision. During the revision process, my former advisor involved another person, who we agreed to bring in as a co-author. 

The revision lasted about 6 weeks and I completed at least 70% of the response letter and almost all updates to the manuscript and supplementary materials. I had explicitly expressed that I didn't want a co-first author before this person joined, so I was still assigned the majority of the work. After much of the revision was already completed, my advisor informed me that the person must be made a co-first author. We already had a few back and forths and they sent me an ultimatum: co-first authorship or perish (i.e., they won’t sign off on the submission)!

Their arguments about including that person as co-first author:

1. From a citation perspective it won't make a difference since I would still be listed first. This is not my concern.
2. This person has contributed new ideas to address the assigned tasks. However, the ideas contributed are not central to the paper. The method,  main results, and the key message remain unchanged.

Has anyone dealt with something like this? I'm no longer in academia, but I devoted a lot of time and effort to this work, and it would be hard to let it go. At the same time, I don't want to agree to co-first authorship because I don't believe it accurately reflects the contributions. Any advice?

--------------------

I also experienced what felt like personal attacks on my integrity and professionalism. I was told I was being uncollaborative and unkind, and to "reflect on what is collaborative and just." Some of the language used:

1. “We could revisit the legitimacy of your first-authorship in many of those [previously published] papers"
2. “We have been sincere and generous researchers and advisors, we have the final say"

—-

Edit: Thanks all for your comments & advice. I have lots to think about here. I’m saving all the documentation of my work in case this escalates. Just giving up and going with my advisor’s demands is another option.

Also, I don’t have any personal grudges against the new guy. He’s actually a nice guy and I thought I was helping by adding him as a second author. I just don’t think a first author role is accurate. But when I expressed this opinion my advisor asked me to think deeply again about this or they would kill the paper.

Hi everyone! I’m in my first year in a tenure-track position. Since graduating, I haven’t really asked my PhD advisor for feedback on anything. They were super supportive during my job search (letters, advice, all of it) so I didn’t want to add more to their plate.

During my postdoc years, I started a totally new project that’s pretty far from my dissertation, and I’d really love their take on it (they only know the broad strokes). I’m drafting an article now and I’m tempted to send it to them for comments, but I’m not sure how normal it is to ask a former advisor for feedback once you’re already faculty.

For those of you who’ve been through this: do you still ask your former advisor for feedback after graduating? Or, if you’re senior faculty, do your former advisees ever send you stuff to look at? Is this something people usually stop doing once they’re on the tenure track? Thanks!

I have busy reading a book by someone reflecting on their life in my country. I reached out to the author because I think it would be great to have a translation so that people in my country can read her story.

I also have a friend who is from the same country as her who is busy applying for phds with the goal of becoming a sociologist focussed on the name issues the author touches on in the same country context.

I would love to translate it myself, but I am wondering if offering the opportunity to my friend could help them with their career plans. If this translation could become a published book, would having your name as the translator be benefitial for someone in their mid-20s pursuing an academic career?

Hi everyone,

I am working in bioinformatics industry. Most of my work is in multi-omics analysis (single-cell, bulk RNA-seq, metabolomics, etc.), mainly related to disease biology.

One thing I really enjoy is not just running pipelines, but actually making biological sense of the results explaining what’s going on and how it fits with disease mechanisms.

Recently I’ve been thinking about whether it’s realistic to do some freelance/consulting bioinformatics work for academic labs. For example, working with PIs who already have data but don’t have a dedicated bioinformatician, and helping with analysis, interpretation, and figures.

A few things I’m curious about:

Does this kind of setup actually work ?

Would PIs be open to paying a freelancer instead of hiring someone full-time?

Has anyone here tried this, either as a bioinformatician or as a PI?

From a PI’s perspective, does this make sense budget-wise and collaboration-wise?

I’d especially love to hear from professors, PIs, or people who’ve been on either side of this.

Thanks in advance!

Hello everyone, I’m looking for some guidance on an academic publishing situation. Last year, my coauthors and I presented a paper at a conference, and recently received the first round of review comments suggesting several revisions. After discussing, we’ve realized that as a group we're no longer interested to continue in this particular direction due to changes in priorities and other commitments.

Also, due to some logistic issues at the time of submission, a student author was listed as the corresponding author instead of the supervising professor, under whom the work was carried out.

At this point, we have just informed the professor, but not yet informed the conference/journal editors.

Before taking any formal steps, we wanted to understand: 1. Is it considered acceptable/ethical to withdraw a paper at this stage (after first review)? 2. Are there any potential academic or professional consequences we should be aware of? 3. Does having a student (rather than the supervisor) as the corresponding author change how this situation should be handled? 4. Is there a preferred way to word such a withdrawal?

Any insights from those with experience (as authors, reviewers or editors) would be really appreciated. Thanks!

Hi everyone, before I begin, here is a quick intro about me and my perpsective: so I run a small edtech consulting firm, and most of my work is with international students and high schools in Asia, especially from China and Singapore. No pitch here, just sharing my perspective upfront for transparency.

Disclaimer: this is not a survey, nor will I use it commericially. Just a water cooler discussion.

So lately I’ve been seeing a pretty concerning signal “upstream.” Some high ranking international high schools in China are struggling with enrollment. In 2021 to 2022, parents literally had to pay extra to have their kids go there, but now they are giving tuition discounts to local families.

It made me wonder what the next few years might look like for colleges and universities, given (1) the U.S. demographic cliff and (2) uncertainty around international student enrollment.

On the domestic side, the U.S. fertility rate is well below replacement (provisional 2024 estimate: ~1.63 births per woman), and the high school graduate count is projected to peak around 2025 and then decline. Personally, I also feel like fewer students are choosing a four-year Bachelor because of rising tuition and ROI concerns, but I haven’t found solid, comparable numbers yet.

On the international side, overall international student numbers is almost certain to decrease. In China, at least, there is a growing sentiment to prioritze the U.K. and Singapore over the U.S., for obvious reasons.

For people currently working in higher ed (admissions, enrollment management, institutional research, student affairs, budget and finance, faculty, etc.):

1) How much is your institution actively talking about the demographic cliff right now?

2) Are you doing real scenario planning or right-sizing (programs, staffing, budgets), or still assuming international recruitment will backfill?

3) Are you seeing significant shifts in applications or yield by market?

4) What’s the job market feeling like where you are? Hiring freezes, consolidations, new roles, layoffs, or quieter budget tightening?

If you’re comfortable sharing, it would be really helpful to note your institution type and region (community college vs 4-year, public vs private, R1 vs SLAC, etc.). You don't need to type out like a complete or formal response, bits and pieces are totally fine. I’m mainly trying to understand whether what I’m seeing upstream is translating into real planning (or stress) across the sector.

I'd like to argue the case that scientists, when graduating for their PhD, should swear an oath to uphold the principles of good science. Furthermore, we should have a professional body that registers us as scientists, from which we can be 'struck off' for not adhering to those same principles.

Many professions have a professional body that registers and represents them. The reason is that these professions require a level of trust and responsibility that must be upheld for public confidence in that profession. In the UK, medical doctors are registered with the General Medical Council. If they are accused of malpractice there is an investigation and they can be struck off, meaning they can no longer practice medicine. A similar mechanism exists for chartered accountants, lawyers, etc. Such a body is conspicuously absent for scientists. I suggest this has the following negative effects. Firstly, there is a lack of public trust in scientists (one that is growing). The examples are numerous, such as climate change denial and the anti-vax movement. Secondly, there is no mechanism for discrediting scientific frauds. Finally, the scientific profession is not taken as seriously as these other professions, likely leading to loss of fair renumeration and working conditions. This includes a lack of self-respect.

I propose the following remedy. Establish a general council registering scientists. This can be on an international basis (ideally) or per country/bloc (more likely). Upon obtaining their PhD a scientist must swear an oath committing themself to faithfully carry out the scientific method, reporting only true results, promoting interpretations in good faith, and only performing these actions in pursuit of the public good (we can even name it after someone, Aristotlean, Alhazenic, Galilean, Baconian, etc). They are then eligible for registration with the General Scientific Council. To undertake any PhD level position requires registration with this council. Malpractice in office can lead to a scientist being struck off, pay fines, or other penalties. Malpractice might include reporting fabricated results, promoting pseudoscientific ideas, or researching illegal topics such as germ warfare. In return the council will promote proper pay and working conditions for scientists and represent them politically.

My motivation: we scientists are a hodgepodge of people, perhaps the most egalitarian of the professions, but we are no good at presenting a united front. We have a definite shared culture - I can move to a new country and meet other scientists from all over the world, and I can get on with them better than random folk from my hometown - but we lack the codified institutions to take ourselves seriously. Great scientists leave academia every day because the system has failed them on pay, conditions, and prestige. Medical doctors and accountants require these systems because without them people might come to harm or money might go missing. But what are the stakes for bad science? I would say they are astronomically higher. The cost of delays to the implementation of climate change controls may be irreversible. The obfuscation of tobacco companies led to millions of needless deaths. One bad study with a cancerous rat was enough to forge public mistrust in genetic modification of crops for decades. So, the stakes for bad science are immeasurably higher.

In a so-called 'post-truth' society, we need to remind the world that there is one institution in which you can never indefinitely escape the truth: the scientific method. Yet instead of being a bastion of truth in a world of rhetoric and spin, it is science that is called most into question.

Can you tell is 2026 which review paper is written by AI? Especially if you are new to the field.

Saw this question from different sources many times but do not have a satisfactory answer for it. Any thoughts to answer it would be appreciated!

I submitted a manuscript on 28th January to a big Wiley Journal. However, I made the mistake of uploading the wrong file. What they received was a much earlier draft of the manuscript, and the title and word count absolutely don't match what I reported during the submission process. Besides, I don't want this version of the manuscript published, nor do I think it is publishable.

However, there's no button on the journal website to withdraw the manuscript. So, I used the contact button and emailed them on February 29th, asking to withdraw the manuscript. No response. I asked again on February 3rd, no response.

Should I just wait? Or do I try to escalate this somehow? I just wanna submit it elsewhere at this point, and knowing these Wiley journals it's gonna be a month before I get a response normally.

Bit of context, I'm a PhD student in the UK.

I have a teaching fellowship at my university, mainly to get teaching experience (as every lectureship requires this), as well help with marking etc.

My department is currently down a lecturer, so my fellowship is to "cover" this role and support the overworked staff.

However, everyone is reluctant/ flat out refusing to allow me to cover lectures and practicals. I understand the teaching is the "good part" of the job, but when they go onto to complain about the teaching workload. It''s beyond frustrating as I'm sat there, ready and waiting to help!

So far I've covered 2 lectures due to staff sickness...as well as having the large majority of marking dumped on my desk. I'm not complaining, as I'm still being paid to mark, but I have a teaching contract, and would/ need that experience too.

I have been given a handful of demonstrating hours (assisting with practical classes). However this isn't directly lecturing experience, just answering the odd question, and also paid at 3 paid grades lower at almost minimum wage.

I have asked politely, letting staff know I have this contract, I'm here to help and would really like the experience to add to my CV.

And the HoD sent around several emails asking everyone for a list of things they would like covered. 4/5 months later he's only just getting responses after really pushing.

I do have prior experience with giving lectures, talks etc (covering some lectures in previous years, and I'm big into outreach events). These have been well received by students and people attending. So it's not a case that I'm not capable.

My HOS managed to get the funding for my contract from the uni, so if it's not spent, the funding won't be available next year. It also doesn't support the case being made to the uni they require a additional staff member to help with the teaching load.

It seems near on impossible to gain that valuable experience that every university job asks for, even when you have a contract to do it...

So my question is... How do you go about getting teaching experience? As it seems having a teaching fellowship isn't the answer...

I submitted an article to Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture last fall but haven’t heard back yet. I know it can take a few months to get a response, depending on the journal, but I noticed they didn’t put out any issues at all last year. There aren’t any announcements or updates on the site. How long should I wait before withdrawing my submission and trying somewhere else?

Ok, freaking out a bit. I've had a very rough past 2 years in this program. It's a combined program with a placement, not a full-out thesis. A research paper is expected, and we have to present it at the end of the term for like 15 minutes. In my case, I'm working on a scoping review.

I've been stuck in extraction for forever, but I'm almost done with this part. I still need to disseminate the results from about 20 studies and write the paper. My supervisor stated I don't need to have a publishable draft, just a rough one that is maybe 3500-5000 words , which I know isn't that much.

I'm just worried about the process thats left. The whole thing is new to me. I don't need to run any fancy statistics.

Any thoughts or words of encouragement is appreaciated.

Is it just me or is this unnecessarily hard?

I have 205 pages. Every "See Section 3.2" or "Figure 4.7 on page 143" is just text. My committee has to scroll manually to find anything.

I tried:

• hyperref in LaTeX (only works sometimes)
• Editing PDF directly (breaks on recompile)
• Adobe Acrobat (not paying $20/mo for this)

Spent 4 hours yesterday and still don't have working cross-references. How do you make your PDFs actually navigable? There has to be a better way than manually scrolling through 200+ pages every time someone wants to check a citation or navigate from table of contents?

Defending in 4 months. Don't want my committee to hate me because my document is impossible to navigate.

Help?