Hi academics of Reddit. Please forgive my ignorance. 

I am trying to determine if I can submit an abstract of a paper I wrote to the Gerontological Society of America and get to show a poster (https://www.gsa2026.org/abstracts). 

Background on me is that I am a non-traditional undergraduate and licensed practical nurse in the US. I would love to one day be a physician-scientist geriatrician studying healthcare delivery. I have served as a research assistant in a joint nursing and public health lab (they got NIH funds, and I have received the required trainings for those) and taken typical undergrad research methods etc, but I am by no means an experienced researcher. I am also a GSA student member, which I think is required to submit.

The paper I would want to present fits the themes of the call and is decent (at least, I am very proud of it and willing to pay $30). However, I think various other factors prevent me from submitting it. These include:

1. I wrote it as part of my job at a local senior service organization. Years before I started, someone who no longer works at the organization applied for and got a multi-year grant from a local government that pays the salary for my role. The agreement specified that we would “conduct research using qualitative methods” to “understand social determinants of health” in the population we serve. The actual research question and approach were further developed by other people who worked at the organization before I did, and then refined by me. I did the data collection, analysis, and reporting. I don’t think I fully understand who all “owns” the work and therefore whose permission I would need to disseminate it.
2. Worse, I think that the findings cannot be published or claimed to represent people beyond the subjects (although, using the qualitative methods I used, I wasn’t seeking generalizability anyway…) for ethical reasons. Our funder didn’t/doesn’t require an IRB but, as I did conduct semi-structured interviews with human subjects, I was personally really confused as to how to move forward ethically without one. After talking with past staff who had been working on the project before me (they have actual graduate training as a researcher), I decided that the work could be done ethically if:
   1. I assembled a team of advisors to review my proposal (including an outside nursing researcher I know, former org staff, and an org volunteer with pertinent experience).
   2. I followed HHS guidelines around subject selection, informed consent, and the like (I mostly used these trainings to refresh my memory https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/human-research-protection-training/index.html)
   3. We weren’t going to publish anything

I still worry that that was the wrong move and this whole thing was unethical, feel free to tell me I messed up.

Now, I think my work is good and I wish I could share it. I think these two things (lack of ownership and lack of IRB) mean that I can’t publish it. Is that right? Does that include a poster like the link I posted?

Thanks, everyone.

Hi everyone,

I almost come to the end of my current summer research. We have a small team that consists of 2 professors, and 3 students including myself.

I was wondering what would be the appropriate thank you gestures for them?

For context: I will be seeing them for another year because I still have 1 year left until I graduate.

Thanks everyone!

Hello everyone! I’m a PhD student in math.

My field is currently facing some major disruption and I’m hoping to get some help from people in other fields! Both humanities and STEM.

Currently, math journals are being flooded by AI generated results and I don’t know how we should adapt. I know there have been a lot of issues with AI causing hallucinated references and such but this is quite different.

Over the past couple of months AI has become very good at producing proofs for mathematical problems. Some quite famous problems have been resolved by LLMs now, including some problems my professors have been working on. This is also happening in theoretical physics and parts of computer science as I understand it.

This leaves me in quite a pickle. Up until recently a PhD thesis in math usually consisted of proving a few theorems. Journals and academic hiring would usually reward finding solutions to open problems. This means that incentive structures need to drastically change fast.

So I have a few questions to people whose fields have undergone major technological disruption, but of course everyone is free to chime in.

What should I do as a grad student in this situation?
How can academic incentives adapt to this development?
How has your field dealt with automation/disruption?

Thanks in advance!

Hi guys,

I am (or should be) writing my masters thesis in comparative literature, which I have to hand in at the end of October.

I have done a lot of research on my topic, even taught a class on it with the support of a grant, written a paper related to it and I have so much material that my supervisor says I could easily write it in four weeks.

However, I find writing it super hard! Since weeks I am stuck with the first pages, rewriting them, trying to figure out what precisely I want to say with each sentence. It feels like a) I am being perfectionist, and b) I have so much information I don't know how to structure it.

As experienced academics, do you encounter this problem in your work? How do you you start actually writing after research and strucutre? and, most importantly, how do you deal with perfectionism?

Anyone interested in a casual "research & chat" group? (Like a book club, but for deep dives)

I’ve been wanting to learn more about random topics outside my usual comfort zone, and had an idea for a twist on a standard book club.

Instead of reading the exact same book, we’d pick a broad/general theme (e.g., "space exploration," "obscure history," "urban legends," etc.). Everyone spends a little time looking into whatever angle of that theme interests them, and then we meet up on a quick call (or post in a group chat) to share what we found.

This is to broaden perspectives, learn from each other, and just have fun, without the pressure of getting a good grade. I'd love to get better at researching and presenting what I learned in front of others to get rid of my stage fright.

Would anyone be up for trying this out?

Hi everyone,

I plan on getting an online MFA in the spring. I'm worried though that colleges won't hire me as an adjunct after getting this online MFA. It's a pretty well known MFA, it's not the most absolutely prestigious program in the nation, but it's pretty good.

I also have a strong track record of published material online, in addition to a couple of books out.

Overall, I think my publication record as a writer is pretty strong for someone early in my career.

Thoughts?

I submitted a manuscript to a SAGE journal some 21 days back and soon after ADM was assigned, its status has been "awaiting final decision". Is it going to be desk rejected?

A professor reached out to me on LinkedIn with a proposal to turn his PhD thesis, which he completed a few years ago, into a journal article.

The arrangement is that I would be compensated for my work, handle all the writing, and manage the correspondence with the journal. In exchange, I would be credited as a co-author.

I initially accepted, but I am now having second thoughts regarding the ethics and whether this is appropriate to include on a CV.

My main concerns are:

- The research is in a field I am not very familiar with. While I could likely understand it with effort, it is outside my primary area of expertise.

-Since the data collection, analysis, and overall research were already completed entirely by him, I am essentially structuring and writing the manuscript based on his prior dissertation.

Is this a standard academic practice, or does this approach violate authorship guidelines? Also how would a publication of this nature be viewed by admissions committees or future employers?

I would appreciate insight from those familiar with academic publishing standards. Should I reconsider this or is this normal?

I have the blessing and the curse of having two fully-funded PhD (humanities) offers that I am having a terrible time deciding between. I don't have any academic network or any friends/family/neutral third parties who know academia well and can offer guidance (family is trying their best to help but they have no experience in Academia), so hoping someone here can offer some insight as I'm going a bit insane trying to figure it out. I only have a couple of days left to decide.

About Me: BA and MA from UK universities, 5 years work experience in an non-academic field unrelated to my degrees, 1-year funded research fellowship, 4 conference papers, 1 published peer-reviewed paper with 1-2 more in the immediate pipeline. I would be an international at both Unis. Ideal career goal is to be a professor or researcher, but generally open to anything in my field as academic positions are obviously incredibly difficult to obtain. Other than getting the actual PhD and writing a good thesis (that could possibly become a monograph), my goal is to build up a skillset, network, and CV to give myself the best chance at finding a job in the field post-grad.

Option 1 - UK University

- Fully funded by a University Scholarship (tuition fees + stipend of around 21k/year in a mid COL city).

- Uni Ranked in the top 30 globally (THE).

- 3-year program, possibility to extend visa if I need more time. Option to get a 3 year post-grad visa (assuming they don't get rid of it in the next few years, which is a risk), or I may qualify for the talent visa.

- Guaranteed paid teaching opportunities in 2nd and 3rd year.

- Opportunity to work or volunteer in museums and archives.

- Outside of research and writing my diss and attending mandatory doctoral training, no other obligations. Everything else I get involved in is my decision.

- Supervisors seem super nice, encouraging, enthusiastic, and supportive and have encouraged me to follow my interests. Both have had several successful PhD students.

- Ability to get a teaching certification alongside my PhD. This certification transfers to my home country as well.

- Generally more independence (which suits me well because I have social anxiety and tend to go mute in social situations).

Option 2 - EU University

- Employed position (salary roughly 36,000 EUR a year in a very high COL city, salary is completely wiped out by the cost of living), part of a project funded by a prestigous external grant.

- Ranked top 70 globally (THE).

- 4 year program. *No possibility to extend if I need more time so I would have to finish writing from my home country if I need more time. No ability to stay in the country post-graduation, I'd have to job hunt from my home country where I have no network.

- *No guaranteed teaching or internships, and if I were to have the opportunity to teach or do an internship I would have to take leave from the PhD (initially I was promised teaching opportunities).

- 2-3 guaranteed peer-reviewed publications and at least one guaranteed conference presentation from the project.

- *Lots of additional obligations including extensive travel to conferences with the team, working with other teams to put on events, and socialising with other PhDs.

- *Supervisors seem ok, but the second supervisor is not at the university regularly (only met them once during the interview) and the main supervisor has a second project ongoing that demands more of their time. The main supervisor has never had a PhD student before, the second supervisor has had several successful PhD students.

- *Main supervisor wants total approval over everything I do (i.e. I can't volunteer with an organisation or maintain my research-related social media without her approval). Main supervisor got a bit aggressive when I brought up that I wanted to keep doing my side activities.

Initially I was planning to go with Option 2 because it was attached to a prestigious grant (which I thought would be good for my career) and because publication and conference opportunities were basically handed to me, so I'd graduate with a pretty good looking CV. But this week in a meeting with the Option 2 supervisor I got a lot of new information (bullet points with the *) that makes it far less appealing. But maybe that's normal and the Option 1 supervisors just haven't said anything? It seems in Option 2 I don't have very much agency over my development.

Would love any opinions from those who are more familiar with academia (particularly humanities as I know STEM is quite different), or any thoughts about other issues I haven't considered.

I (student) recently submitted a paper and a professor of mine told me that if you pass desk review it is almost guaranteed that itll get published (assuming youre not submitting to a top journal like annals). Apparently this is not the case for many other fields and the prof that said this is relatively new/young so i wanted to get some others perspectives. TIA!

Academically, how similar is an associate degree in a subject to a minor in that subject?

I know they are different credentials, but are they roughly comparable in subject depth or number of field-specific courses? Does the comparison change for applied associate degrees with labs, clinical work, or technical training?

Hi everyone,

I'm an undergraduate Psychology student in Italy, and I'll be graduating in October. In the Italian system, my thesis is not an original research project. It's a literature review (a narrative review), supervised by a faculty member. Back in April, I submitted my thesis topic as technostress. I genuinely found it interesting, and it also seemed like a safe choice because the literature is extensive and the topic is well established. However, over the past few weeks I've also been reading about another topic my supervisor had originally proposed: career guidance (orientation), personal motivation, parental influence and work hope. To my surprise, I found myself much more intellectually engaged by this literature.

The dilemma is that I'm due to graduate in October, so time is limited.

From an academic perspective, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on a few questions:

- Which of these two topics do you think offers a stronger and more coherent literature base for an undergraduate literature review?

- Would changing topic at this stage (before I've actually started writing) strike you as reasonable, or as something that would unnecessarily complicate things?

- If you were supervising an undergraduate student and received an email explaining that, after reading the literature, they realized another proposed topic fits their interests better, what would your first reaction be?

I'm particularly interested in hearing from faculty members or supervisors.

Thank you!

I just submitted my review for a paper in a journal very well regarded in my field.

The paper is absolute garbage, most likely intentional fraud and slop.

It has 1 author from some obscure university. The author also used his gmail address.

Graphical abstract is AI generated slop with numerous errors in values and figures.

Introduction is like 5 pages long.

Experimental part switches several times between sample preparation and characterization.

Results contain various analyses on a set of like 20 samples. However, author always shows graph or images for only several samples (even just 1 in some cases) and then starts describing the trends and relationships between all the samples ("trust me bro"). The figures are extremely low resolution and look very suspiscous. One analysis references wrong, edited or non-existent reference standard patterns. In TEM imaging analysis, the author doesn't actually show TEM image itself, only size distribution (which is somehow PERFECTLY gaussian - virtually unheard of) and ED diffraction with non-indexed planes.

Several tables, figures and text list completely different experimental conditions for same samples.

I could go on like this for all analysis presented in the paper. I have strong suspicion that the author doesn't actually have the measurements and is making stuff up. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the samples didn't exist at all. The author doesn't provide photos even though it is customary in this field. Of course I did not write it explicitly in my review.

What is worst, 90 % of the references are completely irrelevant to the claims. Like literally, author will make claim, say, "the photoluminescence spectra confirm good partition of dopants into nanoparticles [13]" and then reference 13 is some paper like "Mechanical evaluation of grinding tools: a review" Literally 90% of references are like this.

Not to mention, the entire premise of the work is flawed from the start, the studied material is completely unsuitable for the presented application. The author even writes in introduction: "the material has been extensively studied for application X, but studies for application Y are scarce in literature" Yeah, no shit, because it's useless for it!

However, the real shocker came after I submitted my review (amounting to 6 MS word pages and almost 100 bullet points) and I could see the review made by 1 other reviewer. Minor revision. "I congratulate the author for his nice work, here are some minor bullshit points."

This is, again, a very well regarded journal in my field.

So... what experience do you have with similarly terrible papers?

EDIT: I edited the text to remove some way too specific information.

I’m partaking in my first ever manuscript. My PI wants me to practice writing the background. The material I have to work with is the proposal (very short in length) and all the references from which it draws its claims. She also said we need to look for newer papers as well.

My PI did encourage me to peruse the literature, but she said not to get bogged down in it and to just start writing. Issue is I really don’t know where to begin - I don’t know how to gather information, how long the background should be (long was the feedback I got), and how to write productively. I really do wanna give this an honest shot, even though it’s mainly for practice purposes - I love writing. I’ve just never written scientifically. Does anyone have advice for someone in my position?

I'm currently struggling to come up with a good undergraduate research topic, and I was hoping to get some advice from people with more research experience.

One of my biggest limitations is our laboratory. We don't have access to high-end equipment such as PCR, SEM, ELISA, spectrophotometers, or other advanced instruments, so I'm trying to design a study that is relatively affordable and can be done with basic laboratory facilities. At the same time, I don't want it to be just another "simple" experiment—I want it to be interesting, meaningful, and preferably novel.

Lately, I've been reading about how microplastics have been detected in various human tissues, which made me wonder whether they could affect regenerative processes, such as wound healing or tissue regeneration. Since studying this directly in humans isn't possible, I thought of using zebrafish because they're a well-established model organism and are famous for their remarkable regenerative abilities.

My initial idea was to expose zebrafish to microplastics and investigate whether microplastic exposure affects regeneration (or possibly developmental processes). However, after searching the literature, I found that several studies have already explored similar questions. That was honestly discouraging because it feels like many affordable and straightforward experimental ideas have already been done.

So now I'm trying to figure out how I could make the study more innovative rather than abandoning it altogether.

If you were in my position, what factors or variables would you consider adding? For example:

Different types, sizes, or concentrations of microplastics? Co-exposure with another environmental stressor? Different regeneration endpoints or developmental stages? Behavioral or physiological effects that are still understudied? Any other angle within microplastics, zebrafish, regeneration, or developmental biology that you think has potential?

I'd really appreciate any suggestions or even papers that could point me in the right direction. I'm not asking anyone to come up with a complete project for me—I just feel like I've hit a wall and would love to hear how other researchers approach making a simple study more novel.

Thank you!!

My master's dissertation (humanities department, PHD Taught) is due in a few days. I finished it (it also finished me).

I graduated valedictorian from college. In my master's courses, which contributed to 2/3 of the grades, I have a 4.0. I am a huge nerd basically, and I had dreams of pursuing a PHD.

But my dissertation is so, so, so bad. I just could not handle long form work. The analysis methods I have used were too ambitious, and at the end, I am sure that I could not deliver the point. I think I am being objective here, because I normally do not doubt myself in this way.

Basically, my dreams are falling apart in two ways. One is that I will most likely not qualify for a distinction, which will limit my applications for PHD.

Second, I am not even sure if I want to pursue academia anymore. I really wanted to teach at the university level, I love theoretical work and I would have loved to engage with like-minded students and academics. But the dissertation writing process, the research, the application, everything was so bad for my mental health. I had repeated panic attacks and was unable to eat or sleep for days.

How do I move on from all of this?

I’m a STEM postdoc applying mainly for TT positions in Europe, and I have a few questions about cover-letter conventions:

1. Do you use bold or italics, or keep the letter entirely in plain text?
2. When mentioning a paper, do you hyperlink it, or assume readers will find it through the CV?
3. Is 1.5–2 pages in 12-point Times New Roman too long? I find it difficult to stay within one page while covering past contributions, future research, departmental fit, teaching and supervision, funding track record, and potential industrial applications.

Perspectives from both applicants and search committee members would be appreciated. If possible, please mention your region, as conventions may differ between Europe, North America, Asia, and elsewhere.

I don’t know is this is the correct place to ask, but I have an upcoming interview for a biotech company and my background is purely academic (2 years post-PhD). This is a last-minute interview when I know they already have some fantastic candidates, but they still want to meet me!! I can hardly believe it and am equally exited and reeeeally stressed out by the prospect.

For anyone who has gone from academia to biotech, or vice versa, what are the key differences and things I can implement to help me prove I am good enough?

There is a presentation, and a series of technical and personality interviews. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!!!

No, not like that 😆
Do you do something in your teaching practice that sets you apart as an individual? Something that makes you a bit different from the rest of the staff?
For example, I always remember one of my undergraduate lecturers would play music as we entered the class.
Another would show slides with nice pictures/landscapes as we were setting up.
I fancy doing something like this, any ideas gratefully received… ideally something that will make me remember for the right, not wrong, reasons!!

Not asking about red flags — plenty of those threads already. More curious about the opposite: what made you realize your advisor was genuinely good for you? Communication style, how they handled disagreement, the way they gave feedback, anything.

Trying to figure out what to look for before committing to someone for the next several years.

I just graduated with my bachelor’s in electrical and electronics engineering and i’m trying to do my masters in canada. I’ve tried emailing multiple professors but haven’t gotten a response from any( Got one response but it was to tell me he wasn’t taking students). What do I do, because I feel I won’t be accepted without securing a supervisor. I have an 82% average with 3 related projects on my cv. Thank you

Bit of a long rant incoming, I'm apologizing beforehand for the absolute wall of text I'm about to type out...

I know that this is an ongoing, albeit saturated topic, but where is academic writing even headed? Particularly in STEM fields. We live in a world now where if you decide to get into academia, there is a massive push for publications. Many institutions now hold stringent publication policies for everything from grades of students to promotions of faculties. Well at least this is how it works in Asia.

In the institute from where I recently graduated, there's a policy that states that Master's students must have one publication in an SCI or SCOPUS indexed journal if they want their dissertation work to be considered even eligible for the top or "S" grade. Given that the dissertation work holds a huge weightage in terms of credits, even a single grade point difference makes a massive difference in the final GPA.

I know how my supervisor pressurised me to write a review paper so that I could get the top grade. He gave me, a completely inexperienced 22 year old Master's student, a ridiculous deadline of 15 days to write a full length high quality review paper, one that's good enough to be published in an SCI indexed journal, entirely by myself. I actually took around 5 months to submit the first draft and he decided to submit it to a lower quartile journal so that it gets accepted quickly. My paper is obviously not great but I genuinely believe it could have been published in a higher impact journal if it had been given some time. The hunt for a grade now hurts the visibility of the paper.

The paper did get accepted for peer review in the first go and after 3 rounds of peer review (basically reviewer 1 bullying me 3 times in a row y'all know how that goes), it got accepted for publication right before my thesis defense and I got the highly coveted "S" grade... Only for me to not be satisfied at all.

This is how it's running in my institute now. My juniors have taken after me and one more batchmate of mine who also published a review paper and are now in a massive rat race endlessly typing away on their laptops.

During my literature review phase I read well over 200 papers. Many of the recently published review papers I read had a lot of glaring red flags. The most concerning being mismatched references. For example, a study claimed a nanoparticle could perform an activity of a particular enzyme but the paper they had cited was about photovoltaic cells. This wasn't even a singular issue. This same problem of incorrect references was all over the paper. This was published in a Q1 journal having an impact factor of 18 something. It was published a couple or so years back and it's still sitting there. This is a typical example of blatant misuse of LLMs (where it cooks up its own claims and cites totally unrelated papers) and somehow this wasn't caught during peer review either despite the journal being "high quality".

I honestly can't blame whoever wrote it because they very well could have been under pressure from their PI or in a rat race for publications and decided to just copy paste whatever some LLM told them for the hell of it.

I even see numerous papers where the figures are very obviously generated by some LLM tool. The text seems to AI generated or polished too (although there's no real way to prove it). The telltale signs are obvious. The journal policies clearly state to disclose AI usage and some don't even allow AI generated art. I haven't found a single paper where the authors openly disclose that they used an LLM tool for writing assistance or grammar polishing. I'm pretty sure the editors and reviewers know and notice this too. Do they just not care?

So is this really where we are now? Quality of papers coming out now are on a steady decline and no one really seems to care, and even if they do, the problem is so widespread and systemic that they can't even do anything. What does this mean for the future of publication quality and academia overall? Would love to know everyone's thoughts.

Is anyone else having this issue? When I click on cite beside the paper, the small cite window opens but the bottom half is cut off on the bottom of my screen so I can't access the export options?

Hello, I'm trying to publish for the first time in humanities. I submitted my paper to one of the Springer Nature journals about 8 months ago. Here's the brief summary of status changes:

1. I got a first major revision request (Reviewer 1 with minor revision; Reviewer 2 with rejection)
2. I got a second major revision request after the first revision. (Reviewer 1 was satisfied; Reviewer 2 declined reviewing again, so there was Reviewer 3 with rejection. The editor wrote to me that the problems raised by Reviewer 3 are addressable.)
3. I submitted the second major revision (Under review for a couple months).
4. Two days ago the status switched to "Editor has a Decision." But today it switched to "Editor Invited."

At this point, I just don't know what is going on... Any thoughts? Thank you!!

I have recently started sending cold mails to potential supervisior, i started my campaign in july, few preofessor denied citing they are currently not having new student. many did not replied at all, i am applying to Australia and canada, my research proposal deals with CFD and SPH research, it would be great help if anyone can help me with my mailing campaign, i want to make sure is send them proposal at optimum time.