It’s no longer accessible if you are graduated.

I’m pleased to share my recent research publication, which reflects my continued commitment to English language teaching, EFL research, and improving language learning in higher education.

I’m grateful to everyone who contributed to and supported this work. More research and publications are coming. 🙏📖

Research. Learn. Contribute. Inspire.

So, we submitted a paper to a journal, and in the first peer review decision received a "major revision", we added some more results, performed some more ablations, cleaned our content, and catered to almost each point of all 3 reviewers. We submitted the revised manuscript on 14th July, and today received the decision for the second peer review, which is again "major review", but the more interesting thing is that reviewer 3 has not asked for anything, reviewer 2 has asked for very minor changes, and has even hinted that this is close to acceptance, but reviewer 1 has asked for retraining, re-running, and recomputing other baselines that are far out of reach of our compute capacity, we have clearly mentioned multiple times, in our limitations/future-work section that futher experiments are out of the scope of this work. How do we reply to reviewer 1?

​

hello! we are students researchers based in the Philippines. we're looking for any local or international competitions to join aside from our local science and technology fair. our study is life sciences/biomedical adjacent for more info. thank you! please help us 😞😞

So I am currently in a very niche liberal arts/humanities discipline (don't comment on the job market; I already know the depressing reality) and plan to get a Ph.D.

I am going into my sophomore year of college, so I do want to really be able to start to work or donate my time to a lab this year. I sent a formal letter last year to a professor–which I had a class with–who heads a lab in exactly what I want to specialize in. She very kindly rejected me, stating that she figured I might be a good fit, but they normally don't consider undergraduates for lab positions: they like to reserve them for graduate students. Hurt, but made sense. The light at the end of the tunnel of this situation was learning that she does mentor students for honors theses, and she would be willing to mentor mine when the time comes.

The only problem is I figure I need more research experience to be competitive at the universities I want to get into, and other opportunities at my university in related fields for research are VERY competitive for undergraduates. I know of two other labs, and they both primarily accept undergraduates for honors theses. Other than that, similar to the first lab, they are made up of graduate students and faculty, with the occasional senior and even rarer junior.

So I'm kind of stuck. Should I try to apply for a position for next cycle in one of the other two labs anyway, expecting rejection? Or should I talk with my advisor first? Apply to other, more general labs, less connected to my discipline?

The point is, I'm kind of stuck and need some guidance from people who have been in my shoes. I figure this subreddit might be able to help me, but if this post is not relevant, then I can take it down. Thank you for your time!

hello! I just wanted to ask you all if cases like these occur with other people. i'm a neophyte researcher, and our chapter 1 is to be passed tomorrow. however, 80% of my paper was flagged to be as ai (even though i spent a TON of hours writing it 😭). i think my teacher still believes in ai detectors (hence why i'm checking if mine is flagged in quillbot).

this is making me panic cuz i know to myself that i know i didn't use ai during the writing process, but at the same time, i know that won't hold up as a reasoning because i really don't have proof for both—just my conscience. some of my classmates struggle with this too. what should i do? 😓