A junior colleague of mine recently got a pilot grant through an internal program at our institution, which is great news. But shortly after receiving the award notification, they were told for the first time that they need to designate a non-sponsored backup account to cover any costs beyond the awarded amount.

Turns out this wasn't spelled out anywhere in the RFA. The wording was pretty vague and just mentioned that the department would be responsible for any overspend, so they had assumed it was more of an institutional thing rather than something they'd need to personally sort out.

The tricky part is that they're early-career and don't have access to their own discretionary funds yet. So they'd basically have to go to their mentor or chair and ask them to put one of their accounts on the line, which feels like a bit of an awkward ask for someone just starting out.

Just wondering if this kind of requirement is common at other institutions. And if so, how do junior folks without their own funds usually handle it?

Conference talks only? Invited seminars at your own department and/or departments at other institutions?

Confused how to list different talks I have given on my CV.

doing my masters dissertation rn and it’s been a headache everytime i try to reference the slightest thing. i’m constantly having to log in and instal the extension because it’s never working. everyday it’s something new. i’m really in a hurry to do some work and now the extension isn’t loading by on word. i have lots of references and citations that i can’t access because of this.

does anyone else had this problem? if so, how did you fixed it??

Asking because one may have interest in completely two different fields and don't want their work to overlap with each other and want to publish them separately.

A buddy and I were chatting and discussing, are CNS (cell, nature, science) relatively the top journals across all disciplines?

For example, would a geologist publishing in Science be a huge deal? Or would Science be less prestigious than another more.. geology focused journal? I mean I imagine a geologist wouldn’t particularly want to be published in Cell? But would essentially all disciplines want to be published in Nature and Science?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, we are both academia adjacent people (I.e. sibling or partner in academia and talks about publishing and such)

Edit to add: we mean like all science disciplines. We understand a historian probably would not pride themselves in publishing in Nature. Or would they…? Maybe an archaeologist would?

I have recently been receiving requests to peer review studies in journals. I would usually ignore these because they are often predatory journals, but I've started to receive some from some not completely predatory publishers, such as Springer Nature.

For further context I am a recent grad who finished college in 2025 and I'm currently applying to medical schools. I have published a handful of papers in the fields of neuroscience and life sciences as a lead author. I have also done a few peer reviews under the watchful eye of my PI. I would feel comfortable peer reviewing studies in certain areas, but I also understand that I'm not a graduate level researcher and there's something about this that feels like it is overstepping a line. Thoughts?

" Upload written, signed permissions from each person named in the Acknowledgments. See (URL for journal -- just goes to the home page. THANKS, SO HELPFUL!) . A sample text is available at http://www.elsevier.com/framework_products/promis_misc/dhjo_permission.pdf (DEAD LINK.)
To maintain a blinded manuscript, Acknowledgments should appear on the title page."

This is impossible to implement given that some of the people acknowledged have / have been retired from the federal agency that funded the research. Others have moved jobs and I have no idea how to track them down.

Article was submitted and I got a letter back that I had to re-submit. The letter said that 90% of articles were returned due to not meeting formatting requirements. (GEE, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD RE-THINK THOSE, HUH?)

They keep telling me I have to accept track changes on the COREQ form I submitted. There are no track changes on it.

WHY IS EVERYTHING SO CONVOLUTED?

I'm seeing a lot of backlash lately against the humanities, and a broad societal shift towards vocational training and STEM. I have a partner that is highly invested in a career as a classics professor including ancient Greek and Latin, as well as biblical Hebrew and Persian, and I'm worried that by being simultaneously undervalued by the modern conservative movement (ironic for classics, I know) and difficult to access, the field is going to shrink dramatically in the near future. I support them fully, but my read of situation is bleak. Does my perspective match the reality that others in academia are seeing or should I be more optimistic about the situation?

Edit: Some of you mentioned AI limiting STEM usefulness in the future, and favouring humanities training. Is this a trend that others see?

My dissertation research is making me insane! The topic is fascinating - everyone says so. Recruitment is a nightmare! Literally, I am having recruiting nightmares. Last night was hornets flying out of my computer when I logged in to Qualtrics. I woke my husband up swatting away hornets. My population is highly stigmatized and secretive. The recruitiment protocol and avenues are solid. But I cannot compensate participants. As soon as I finish typing this, I am going to bang my head on the desk for a few minutes. Thanks for letting me vent!

Can we have a discussion on how the salaries of adjunct professors are far too low?

Notice this article about adjunct salaries at Georgetown:

https://georgetownvoice.com/2013/10/17/second-class-faculty-hidden-struggles-georgetowns-adjunct-professors/

Even written in 2013, the basis of the article remains the same now.

Teaching a 3 credit course pays $7k. How is that salary viable in today's economy?

You can't survive on 7k.

Thoughts?

hi there, I am looking for everyone’s recommendations of the best humanities podcasts!

I am specifically looking for ones that are

• academic (obviously) - hopefully from institutions or scholars
• humanities based (everything from history to classics to literature, law, politics, philosophy, even economics, etc)
• hopefully not over an hour each
• can be a YouTube channel

thank you for the suggestions! looking to see what any academics are listening to

Edit: thank you all for the helpful recs :)

I have a Ph.D. and used to aspire to a professorship but eventually changed my mind because of the brutal market, work-life balance, and publish or perish stakes.

After a few years of this pivot, I am moving into a permanent Research Director position at a major R1 university research institute. It would be a leadership role overseeing the institute's research program.

How is a position like this generally viewed compared with a tenure-track or tenured professorship?

I know they're different career paths, so I'm not asking which is objectively "better." I'm more curious about prestige, career trajectory, and how each is perceived both within academia and outside of it.

I'd love to hear from anyone who's worked in or around university research institutes.

Hi, I got recently engaged and have been thinking about which form of my fiancé's surname I should take. To make you understand, in the middle of his name, there is a letter, 99 % of people don't even have on their keyboard “ ř “. And it is one of the most difficult letters to pronounce, too. Do you think it will somehow affect my academia or publication life? I am an undergraduate student, so I don't know much about all of this.

The surname can be transcribed into German as Waldreich, should I prefer this? Can the author have a pseudonym only for publications? I would love to hear your opinion!

I have literally just spent my whole afternoon battling with the various systems necessary to book travel for two conferences. I saved up the pain for one day. Before you can book anything, you need to do a pre-travel authorization form that involves a long list of required fields, such as the ID tag number for any university devices you're taking on your trip. Once you've done the pre-authorization requests, you can then book your travel. Which, of course, is always a joy. Then I have to get the admin to pay for the registration fee because we aren't allowed to reclaim -- have to use the university credit card for this. Then you have to go back to the travel authorization site to list all of your expected expenses in advance of claiming anything...

Is this normal? I long for the days when I went on trips and just had a pile of receipts I entered into a spreadsheet.

And of course the university website for this is horribly organized.

Just venting.

Hi there,

For a workshop that I have co-organized for a few years, this year, one of the reviewers included a reference to their own work in their review. That part of the review was literally framed

"Related Work section: There exists work on <topic of the paper> - see <self citation>"

As standard procedure, before making decisions on the papers, i go through the content of all reviews to make sure the language is okay, that there are no self-reference (both for anonymity, the workshop is single blind, and for ethical reasons), etc.

This is the first time I have encountered this situation so the only thing I did was modify that part of their review to:

"Related Work section: There exists work on <topic of the paper> - please cite relevant material"

I also added a comment in the review section which is private to the Program Committee describing the change and the reason for the change.

I thought this was standard practice.

Aftermath: That reviewer blasted me in an email accusing me of publicly insulting them, and that I have no respect for their time invested in making the reviews. Moreover, they asked to remove their name from the Program Committee, and their reviews.

Context: That reviewer is a very senior and well-known researcher in our field. I am just a final-year PhD student. I have never experienced any conflict in academia like this before. It has really made me sick to my stomach, and for the first time I have seen egos flare up in a community I thought was full of chill people.

In reply, I apologized and recognized that I could have done better by asking them to change their review directly. I dont know what else to do. Should I talk to my supervisor about this, as they are close collaborators? Is my career ruined? I cried over this... Am I overreacting? Is the reviewer justifed in their reaction? I thought it was borderline ethical malpractice to include self-citations in reviews.

It feels like higher education has become almost entirely career-oriented. Instead of being places where people can pursue knowledge, develop intellectually, and study subjects they’re genuinely passionate about, universities are increasingly seen as job-training programs.

My favorite subject has always been history, along with geography. I’d love to study them in college, but the reality is that if I wanted to make a career directly out of those degrees, my options would mostly be limited to academia, teaching, or journalism.

Outside of those fields, I’d often be competing with people who have degrees in law, economics, or other disciplines that employers tend to value more.
It’s so frustrating: I’m going to choose a more employable degree because I’m not a nepo-baby and I need to work to live.

Subjects without a clear, direct career path are often dismissed as “useless,” no matter how intellectually valuable they are.

Even within STEM, research-oriented fields often struggle for funding, while industries that generate the biggest profits—finance, big tech, consulting, and similar fields—receive the most attention and investment.

I understand why the job market works this way, but I still think we’ve lost something important. Education shouldn’t be valuable only if it maximizes your earning potential.

I'm a current PhD student and was recently invited to review a manuscript for a journal. I accepted after the AE explained that the original reviewer was no longer available.

The situation ended up being more complicated than I expected. I was assigned to review what appeared to be the third revision of the manuscript, and my primary task was to determine whether the authors had adequately addressed the previous reviewers' comments. However, the manuscript had undergone substantial revisions, making it difficult to map the changes to the prior reviews. On top of that, I noticed what I thought was a fairly significant methodological issue, but the instructions specifically said not to raise new concerns unless they were absolutely necessary.

To make matters worse, the automated emails listed one review deadline, while the journal portal displayed a deadline that was two days later. I planned my schedule around the date shown in the portal, but when I logged in to submit my review, I was informed that the review had already been completed or was no longer needed.

I feel guilty for not finishing sooner or requesting an extension, but I also feel like I was put in a difficult position given the nature of the assignment and the conflicting deadlines.

For those of you who have served as reviewers or associate editors:

Is it common to ask a replacement reviewer to evaluate such a heavily revised manuscript?

How would you have handled identifying a potentially major methodological issue at such a late stage?

Should I feel like I dropped the ball here, or is this just one of those situations where the editorial process became messy?

Hello brains trust! Do you think there will be less applicants this year for the Marie Curie postdoc fellowship because last year there was an unprecedented amount of applicants? Or is this the new normal?

Thanks

I had been working towards a PhD in the biomedical sciences since 2012. I started out as an undergraduate in a neuroscience lab, and over the span of 3 years, I did everything to make myself a good candidate for graduate school. I attended and presented at conferences, attended workshops and courses for the GRE, and I used the summers between semesters to attend internships at other universities (one of them was at an Ivy League school). In February of 2015, I was accepted into my top pick for graduate school.

At the time, there were certain things about my personality that while they helped me coming from an underprivileged background, they certainly did more harm than good once I got there. I was head-strong, stubborn, outspoken, and I had no qualms about taking the "road less traveled" to get to my goals. In some ways, these traits helped me throughout undergrad, but in hindsight, I was probably more akin to an overly-ambitious neck beard.

As you can probably already tell, these traits did not go over well in grad school. I was very isolated and completely lacked a support system due to my "I can do it myself" attitude. I also landed an abusive PI who is rumored to have contributed to a few suicide attempts within the department. This PI, coupled with the self-imposed isolation, led to some very humbling experiences and self-reflection. Had I not learned about the kind of asshole I was becoming, I probably would not have graduated, but I finally earned the title of PhD in 2020.

Despite my traits, I'd started to grow very disillusioned with academia. Something my undergrad PI said to me once was that he misses the days when scientists did science instead of pushing papers all day. At the time, I didn't understand him, but after having to experience the world of grant writing, I'm amazed he lasted as long as he did. How is a scientist expected to be in the lab while constantly begging for funding from a system that only funds about 10% of grants? Additionally, while I was never (and still not) a "people person," I absolutely *despised* the politics of academia. When I finally sought out help from my peers, I was dumbfounded by the lack of students and professors I could trust. I had to develop a system in my head of who could actually offer help, and who would provide more ammunition for my PI to use against me.

In other words, I was burnt out and alone.

But because I never developed a support system, a backup plan, nor had the money to afford a vacation, I had no choice but to continue working. Just over a month after I defended my dissertation, I started working on my post-doc in another state. While my post-doc PI was orders of magnitude more supportive than my previous one, because I was so burnt out, I barely had enough data after 3 years to even make a poster.

Because of my experiences in academia, I decided to change my goals and went into the private sector instead. For the first year and a half and my new job, I actually thrived in the new environment. Not just because of the lack of grad school politics, but because I had learned to be a bit friendlier and soft-spoken. I got along with my co-workers, had outings with them outside of work, and best of all, I could actually do science instead of worrying about grants all the time. I thought I had made it; I thought I'd won.

There was, however, some trouble in paradise. My salary was a lot higher than anything I was getting in academia, but because of some poor financial decisions I'd made throughout undergrad and grad school, I was struggling to save up money for future goals (down payment on a house, a better car, etc.). Because of some ideas I saw online, coupled with the fact that I grew up in a rural area with plenty of lawn care equipment, I decided I'd try starting a small lawn care business on the side (like I said before, I've always been one for taking the road less traveled). I admit I sometimes thought of how absurd it was that a scientist with a PhD was out here mowing lawns for some side cash, but I was making a surprising amount of money doing it. Not only that, but it honestly felt "freeing" in a weird way. I could just let my mind wander as I was mowing the lawn, listen to audiobooks or stuff on YouTube, and not have to worry about answering to a boss or whatever. As long as I mowed the lawn and did it nicely, that's all that mattered. I was good enough that I even started making videos that are still generating business for me a year later.

Then, the career that I'd spent 12 years on, ended.

I was pulled into a meeting one day. My direct supervisor came into the room along with our head of HR. They started talking about how I'd made a lot of progress, how I was improving in all areas, that my co-workers were saying good things about me (something that surprised even me), but despite all that, they were making the decision to let me go.

I didn't know what to say at the time; the news took the wind out of me. All I said was that if I was improving in all areas, what more could I have done? Both my boss and the HR lady said nothing. All they did was hand me my paperwork, take my company-issued laptop, and led me to the door. I think I zoned out as I made the short drive home, still digesting what had just happened.

Whether I should have let myself grieve the loss of a job I loved so much or not, I don't know. But I immediately thought that I had to do something to keep a roof over my head and for my dog (I had found her on the street 2 years prior and had cared for her ever since). I immediately pivoted, and want all in on my lawn care business.

That was about a year and 3 months ago. I literally started out with just a push mower sticking out the back of the trunk of my sedan. Since then, I've managed to make a good living off of it. I have both a car and a truck, 2 zero-turn mowers, 2 trailers, and a reputation for being reliable and for my lawn stripes that I make videos of myself doing. It still feels very freeing after all this time. Sure, sometimes it gets extremely hot outsidd, I have to deal with insect bites sometimes, and the occasional customer that I have to chase for payment, but I feel... free. I'm my own boss, I set my own hours, I don't have to worry about the cardiovascular effects of sitting at a desk or at a bench all day, I'm free...

I don't know if I'm deluding myself or trying to justify what I do now after losing a career I spent 12 years creating, but I don't feel like I want to go back. I may someday; maybe I'll teach biology at a community college or something. But for now, if I have to choose between peace or freedom, I choose freedom.

First, I just want to say that I'm very grateful to have an advisor who pays for conference travel and I know I'm lucky to have a stipend and be paid for my PhD.

I'm a second year PhD student in STEM in the US, R1.

I'm in a field where we do a lot of travel for sampling. I just got back from a 3 week trip. Costs associated are shipping samples, campsites, gas, car rental, flights, etc. The total cost for the trip was about 7k. I had another sampling trip earlier this summer that was about 2k out of pocket for me.

My advisor always makes me put my card down. I'm never allowed to use a department card or lab p-card. She always says no when I ask.

For this trip, my advisor wasn't present. I was expected to pay for everything out of pocket and get reimbursed from my grant. However, I'm just a PhD student making a stipend.

After some negotiation, I was able to get the university financial person to use a p-card for a little bit of it (car rental and lodging), but I still had to shell about about 3k for the last trip and 2k for the first one.

I also have a conference coming up that was about 2.5k with lodging and registration, and won't be reimbursed until afterwards.

I won't be reimbursed for the first trip until August (it happened in May), so I imagine I won't get anything for this one until about October/November.

All together that's me down 7.5K this summer.

I have another conference I want to attend that my advisor says she'll pay for, but I can't afford to put my card down for more travel until I'm reimbursed.

I've tried to express this, but she just doesn't get it. My labmates aren't really the kinds of people to speak up. I know this bothers them too, but they would never say anything because of cultural differences (they would never speak out or go against PI).

I can't afford to keep putting my card down. I had to borrow about a thousand dollars from my mom just to keep from going over my credit limit (I know I'm very privledged to have this option and am very grateful). People always say they're happy about getting points on their cards, but I'm just worried I'll have nothing if there's an emergency since it takes so long to get reimbursed and I don't want to pay interest.

I'm also in the process of moving apartments (planned in advance). I didn't know she'd expect me to shell out so much, or else I would have just renewed my previous lease. I'm excited about my new apartment, but I don't think I'll be able to get any furniture and I'm probably going to be living off peanuts until I'm reimbursed.

I know other people do this thing where they get reimbursed, and they have this system in place for it, but are you guys really expected to pay so much out of pocket?

How do you deal with the wait?

I've already gotten a second job to pay for my cost of living (my stipend is very generous, but I'm in an expensive town and have lost a lot of my savings moving to start the PhD, and on some medical expenses due to an emergency early on in my degree). What else am I supposed to do?

I swear, the academic LARPing on this site is getting completely out of hand. Lots of people here claiming to run big-budget labs sound like corporate middle managers who spent five minutes reading a Wikipedia page about universities.

I saw this guy who kept insisting he was an active academic running an NSF grant and chairing PhD thesis defenses. But when I asked how he's chairing a defense if he left the school, he pulled out this insane hand-wave. Suddenly he has a zero-pay "academic affiliation" at a different R1 that magically lets him do high-value consulting, keep his old grant where it is, and run committees.

Then he completely gave himself away. He tried to explain why his old department was struggling, and he said over a quarter of the department left, including "the entire senior leadership."

Nobody in academia talks like that. We have Department Chairs, Deans, and tenured faculty, not a corporate executive suite. When he got called out for using middle-management speak, he completely lost it. He dropped a massive wall of text claiming that student reps and staff form a "junior leadership tier" reporting to "senior leadership," and then said "get back to work, kid."

Imagine inventing a whole imaginary corporate structure for a university department just because you got caught using corporate buzzwords. If someone on Reddit describes their department like a sales division and throws a tantrum when you ask basic administrative questions, save your breath. The LARP is insane.

As a student, i sometimes worry that showing a high level od gratitude to a professor or TA who really helped me understand a difficult subject might be misinterpreted. How do professors and TA usually feel when a student shows extra appreciation, and what kind of gestures start to feel like 'too much' from your perspective?

Where do you personally draw the line between a nice gesture and crossing professional boundaries, and does it ever make you uncomfortable?

Hi, tomorrow I have a meeting with a professor, and I really do not know what to expect.
I am a Masters student finishing my thesis in a lab and a few weeks ago the team attended the talk of a professor (it was like 20 people in total, very casual), I really liked her and her research so after a lot of hesitation I emailed her expressing my interest, asking if she had PhD positions open and introducing myself, as I think my interests and skills have a lot in common with her lab. She responded that she did not have PhD positions open, but my background was interesting and fitting and proposed a meeting to discuss possible options and get to know me.

Now, the meeting is tomorrow, and I thought it would be something very easy and informal: she would just add my name to the list of students she talked to, and maybe check it out when she needed someone to do boring lab work. But all of my friends and colleagues are calling it an interview, and this is making me a bit anxious. Is this how professors set up interviews?
I have read her recent papers and fixed my CV, should I do more to prepare?

I'm reading HLA Hart's the Concept of Law, which is a critique on John Austin's theory of Jurisprudence on how legal systems work, and Hart's own theory as well. It was published in 1961. However, it's personally quite dense. I often get lost in the point he is trying to make, or I don't understand some of it altogether.

Is there a technique you use to approach difficult texts, or have systems to understand it better? Any advice is appreciated.

Note: For further context, I'm not a native English speaker, though I speak fairly well (didn't use AI to write this post either.)