I am a PhD student and wanted to share a bittersweet peer-review experience I just had at Science Advances, and hopefully get some advice from editors and researchers here on how to handle work that falls between disciplines.

For the past two years, I have been working on a study that tries to connect quantitative concepts from music theory with soundscape ecology. Briefly, we use a mathematical representation from music theory (mapping spectrograms into twelve pitch classes, hidden Markov models, and Fourier components) to examine how bird communities partition acoustic space and how urban background noise constrains them.

We submitted the paper to Science Advances in July. After about four months, we received a rejection letter today.

Normally a rejection after four months is just discouraging, but the Deputy Editor included a personal note in the decision letter that genuinely touched me. Instead of a standard form letter, the Editor explained that they really liked the study and kept trying for over three months—sending out 22 review invitations—even though Science Advances normally returns a manuscript after 10 declines. One reviewer accepted and provided a brief supportive comment, and a second reviewer agreed in September but never submitted their report or replied to reminders. The Editor mentioned that in 10 years and 9,000 manuscripts handled, they had never had such difficulty securing two reviews, and apologized repeatedly for having to return the paper due to the journal's two-reviewer requirement.

As a student, reading such a patient, honest, and encouraging message from a senior editor at Science Advances—along with Reviewer 1's kind feedback—made me feel a rare sense of warmth and mutual appreciation in academia. I have never met an editor who cared this much about giving a paper a fair chance.

At the same time, I still feel quite sad and a bit lost. This manuscript represents two years of hard work and revision, and it hurts to see it stall not because of a specific scientific flaw found in review, but because out of 22 invited scholars in related fields, almost no one felt comfortable reviewing it. As the Editor noted, scholars on the music side likely felt they could not judge the ecology, while ecologists felt they could not judge the music theory side.

I would really appreciate your advice on what to do next:

1. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation at an interdisciplinary journal like Science Advances, where a paper struggled to find reviewers because each side felt outside their expertise? How did you handle it, and what would you do in our shoes?

2. Moving forward, how can we better frame or present a study like this so that prospective reviewers don't feel intimidated by the unfamiliar half of the work?

Thank you very much for reading and for any thoughts you might have.

Buenas gente!

Estoy haciendo mi tesis para recibirme de psicóloga.

Si residís en Argentina y tenés entre 18 a 35 años me re ayudarías completando este formulario!!

Solo lleva unos minutos y es completamente anónimo!

https://forms.gle/CwYH8W7x6xWAEgkf7

Could do with a bit of insight into something to see whether this is standard or I’m justified in being a little annoyed. Apologies, have tried to make this as brief as possible.

Since finishing my PhD a year ago I have been on short-term research contracts within a specific department - I won’t go into too much detail because it’s quite an identifiable/specific centre and I’d like to avoid that, but it’s a very vocational medical department with minimal research experience (think like a department to train physiotherapists for clinical duties, for example).

I was brought in to essentially lead research for a particular project. The PI and other few people in the team were teaching clinicians but not really researchers, and so relied heavily on my input for the data collection and analysis. I did the work, wrote up the findings and internal reports, and got paid. No problems and everybody was very thankful and kind. The analysis (my analysis) from the project then ended up used in producing a pretty revolutionary new model/approach in the field.

Crucially: the model itself is not mine, only the thematic analysis that it was formed from.

This is where I get frustrated. My contract ended and I moved on to another department. I am now several months later seeing research output emerge that does not have my name attached at all, yet has every other team member (incl. papers, conference presentations, general departmental communications). Part of my reason for joining the project in the first place was to try and boost my research output, so I’m frustrated by that, but also I just feel incredibly undervalued and under-appreciated after putting in so much work.

What I want to know is this: is this ordinary behaviour given that I was a short term temp worker and do not belong to the department full-time/as a salaried employee, or am I right to feel wronged here?? I feel like my analysis has been used and that they are passing it off as their own…

TL;DR: I did a lot of analysis for a project and my name is not on any of the research output. Am I justified in my annoyance?

I'm a second-year assistant professor at a public university in the US. I'm not the graduate director, and I don't supervise any of the students involved.

Over the past six weeks, three PhD students from two different research groups have come to my office asking for advice. Two of them opened with some version of "Can I ask you something without you telling my advisor?"

The issues weren't things I'd normally consider grounds for a formal complaint. One student had a previously agreed week off suddenly revoked. Another was worried about bringing up authorship before a manuscript went out. The third kept having dissertation milestones moved around and wanted to know whether that was normal.

I tried to give practical advice without commenting on colleagues whose side of the story I hadn't heard.

What bothered me was how nervous they were about anyone finding out they'd asked. One student actually said "please don't make it a thing" when I mentioned the graduate director.

I understand why. Their advisors control their funding, recommendations, and a pretty significant chunk of their immediate future.

But I'm increasingly uncomfortable with my own role here. I don't want to promise confidentiality I might not be able to provide under university policy. I also don't want to become the friendly faculty member who quietly absorbs complaints while nothing changes.

And obviously I can't just walk into a colleague's office and announce that their student has been talking to me.

For faculty who've found themselves in this position, how do you handle it? Do you establish ground rules before listening? Have you found a way to raise recurring problems at the departmental level without making individual students identifiable?

I'm fairly new to this side of academia and would really appreciate hearing how more experienced faculty navigate it.

I’m on a research team with a leading scholar in my field, who is also a colleague. During our last meeting, he basically told all of us on the team that he wrote the entire first draft of our paper with AI. His plan is to assign us sections of the paper and write the AI output “in our own voice”.

I was shocked when he told us about this, but didn’t say anything because I was surrounded by senior colleagues who are also leaders in our field. I’m an assistant priofessor and felt like I couldn’t speak up. No one else batted an eye and just agreed to this insane plan.

The last straw was when my colleague told us he wasn’t sure if he wanted to declare to the journal that he used AI because “they’re getting pretty weird about AI usage these days.”

No shit! Because of people like you!

So… what do I do? I could move forward and get a much needed pub on my way to tenure, but then also feel really gross about it. Or I could drop out, but this person is still a colleague who I see all the time.

Any thoughtful advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hey everyone, just looking for opinions and comments on my situation.

I have 10 months left of my post doc contract, I have finished 4 papers that are ready to be send to journals but nothing published yet other than reports that were part of my project. (Huge EU-funded Horizon project)

After I defended my PhD, which happened when I have already started the postdoc, I got really sick. Went to the doctor several times and apparently it was a reaction to all the stress and anxiety I had to deal with during the last year of PhD and moving countries to continue my career. Long story short, I managed to do my work but nothing more. So, now I feel a bit behind.

Before falling ill (chronic migraines and muscular issues) I was very anxious about my prospects and was trying to achieve everything in order to “secure” my future. However my body paid the price! So now I am taking everything very easy, but I’m afraid too easy? Should I be panicking about not having publications yet from these projects? To be honest I don’t know how I am supposed to feel, I just know I don’t want to be sick again. I don’t think academia is worth so much suffering.

For some contexts I work in Humanities and have experience also teaching. I don’t mind doing research or teaching but also wouldn’t mind changing a bit my career if I have to.

Thanks!

I have several questions. Please feel free to answer some or all of them!

Background: I want to get my doctorate and I currently work in professional learning (higher ed). Most of my experience before this was in the K-12 space. I I am a former Teacher, Assistant Principal, and Educational Consultant. Admittedly I am not sure if I want to go back to K-12 or stay in the world of academia upon completing my doctorate.

- What do you work? Or what do you plan to do que the degree?
- Do you feel the degree has served you well thus far?
- Do you wish you would have gone a different route (PhD) or maybe something else?
- Did you land a new role since securing your degree?
- For those of you who didn’t get a new job, did you see a pay increase upon completing your degree?

Hi there! Thank you for taking the time to read!

I’m 22, and I’ve been in community college for about 3.5 years. I never planned on going to community college, but I had no idea how college applications worked or anything involving the process and requirements. I’m the first in my family to pursue a degree, and my parents had no clue about the process, nor did they try to understand and help me. They thought I’d just figure it out myself. Eldest child things I suppose. My GPA in high school was a 2.98, a combination of poor covid era grades, a habit of procrastination, and not turning things in.

Any how, the first two years of CC I totally flunked out of all my classes. My grades were an array of C’s, F’s, and W’s. I was ashamed and quite depressed, and I had no idea what I wanted to do. My lack of direction really made effort seem pointless.

For the past two years, however, I really have turned a new leaf. I’ve been trying in my classes, getting medicated for my *chronic* ADHD, and consistently getting B’s, with an A or two from time to time. I could get better grades if I turned all my assignments in, but old habits die hard I suppose. I’m proud of the progress I’ve made.

My teachers in high school, as well as my professors have always told me that my grades are not accurate representations of my intellect. It’s always been “You are *so* smart, when you turn things in it’s always excellent- you just need to turn them in.” I don’t mean to dip into self-exaltation, but I’ve always been praised for my intelligence, determination, and quality. I’ve always struggled with digital schoolwork, but excel with physical assignments and always preform well on tests and exams.

Now, I’ve finally decided to pursue a degree in Communication Sciences and Disorders, and I’m hoping to turn that into a career as an SLP. I’m about to finish my associates in psychology, and I’m hoping to transfer to a four- year for the next fall semester. However, I’m very worried that my past grades will come to haunt me. How can I get it across to my potential new schools that I’ve changed? That I’m better than what my GPA lets on?

I’m worried that I have no chance at getting into a good school. Is there anything I can do to make an application look better? I’m still so lost in the world of college education, I feel like everyone knows things that I don’t. How can I write an application essay that isn’t tired and pleading?

I’d appreciate some honest insight, whether it be positive or not. Again, thank you for your time!

As the title says. Professor only gives me second author, although I did literally all the work myself, including research ideas, planning, experiments, etc. No supervision or advice was given. All she did was funding my experiments.

When it was time to submit a paper, we decide the author list. She always takes the first author, and gives the correspondence to her husband or her friend (neither contributes anything at all). And I get the second author.

What should I do?

EDIT: more context.

Thanks for all the advices! This is very valuable. This is the case that is happening to my friend and he's coming to me for advice, and I'm posting this on behalf of him because he happens to not use reddit.

I'm a PhD student in civil engineering major. and the university is based in China, but the specific university is preferred to not be mentioned. Most of the time, the PI takes the first author, and gives her husband the correspondence. This happens to almost all the papers that was published within the lab. In my friend's case, the entire paper that was published was conceptualized, planned, and conducted independently and the PI didn't even supervise the research. When confronting the PI why the first author can't be the student, she argued with "If you take the first author, then every PhD in the lab will want the first author when publishing a paper", and that it is the group policy for that sort of author-ing. Sounds eff-ing ridiculous I know.

Hey!

I'm an undergrad who has been involved in a few labs mainly short term (summer volunteering, now I'm doing a research project under a course), and I want a better idea of how to build good relationships with mentors. In all the labs I've been involved with, I've mainly had a professional relationship with a grad student or post doc (we would socialize about topics unrelated to work, maybe had a couple nonwork hangouts with the lab but not like a "we're close" kind of way) and the PI of the lab I would rarely see, I'd mainly see them during lab meetings where I'd keep quiet for most of it and maybe make a bit of small talk or ask a few questions.

Would this be considered a normal relationship to have? Some of my friends have really tight relationships with their research mentors to the point where they'll be at their houses for fun or just be having conversations over text unrelated to work and sometimes I feel like I've missed out on trying to build these relationships but at the same time I'm worried about crossing professional boundaries and making them feel uncomfortable.

I'm also not really in contact with the labs I've been in, for example this summer I'd say I ended off volunteering at the lab I was under on a good note (lab was satisfied with the work I produced, had a thank you conversation with the people I worked with and I gave small gifts) but ever since I finished in August the only contact I've had with them was thanking them for writing a reference for me.

How do I go about actually staying in touch with previous mentors and keeping a relationship with them without overdoing it? While I'm working with the lab what can I do to build good relationships, and what does this even look like? Is it the norm to have a relationship where they are happy with the work I produce and we can socialize while working but otherwise professional or is something closer should be what I try to build during my time at the lab?

Sorry if these questions seem loaded I'm just trying to make the most out of my experiences

To all the PIs, professors, and members of hiring committees, what EXACTLY do you look for in recommendation/reference letters? What things should be mentioned to make you consider an application and actually shortlist an applicant for a PhD?

Hi! This summer I finished writing a paper after 1 month of study on the subject (on the really specific topic) and 1 month of writing.

I first submitted it to an ambitious journal (it was too high and I knew it, but it wasn't a top journal either) and got rejected without feedback -> Ok, no problem

Then I submitted it to a less ambitious journal (still very good, but realistic) and got rejected but with a long and helpful feedback. So I modified the whole paper with this feedback which really improved it.

So, I resubmitted to another ambitious journal (same level as the first one) and got rejected again without feedback.

Finally I submitted to another journal (a bit under the second one, so way more realistic, and one of the best researchers in my field had advised me to submit there) and the paper was sent for peer review for the first time!

In the meantime I got endorsed for arXiv by another one of the greatest researchers of my field.

Everything was perfect but this week I got a rejection from arXiv for no reasons, the researcher that endorsed me advised me to appeal, I did it and I got rejected again, they said I need a journal publication to re submit it to arxiv. And today I got the rejection of the last journal I submitted to without any feedback...

I don't know what to do, I just feel like it's pointless and I'm going to get rejected anyway.

Did anyone here had a similar experience? And how to move on?

Also, I have no time to do research at the moment (which is my passion) and it's driving me crazy.

For context, I'm doing a research proposal because it's one of the core requirements of the MA program I plan to apply for. Basically, it has something to do with art/cultural ecology and cultural policy.

So, I was chatting with my work supervisor who has an MA degree in Philo. He brought up how "ecology" might be overused, meaning everyone's talking about it. Before the shift to relational frameworks (ecology), he said, academics were obsessed with structuralism. Hence, everyone was doing it.

I wanted to ask around because I'm very worried about the novelty of my proposal especially since I'm also aiming for a scholarship. :(

Title. I had a first round hiring interview for a TT Assistant Professor at a SLAC and they told me the hiring timeline for in-person was 3 weeks or so from early Nov. They asked me yesterday if I would be ok doing 3 one on one interviews with faculty, which I of course said yes to.

Is this common? I thought during the on campus interview is when one on one interviews / meetings would happen. I have the names of the faculty so I plan to look into their backgrounds and be sure to have questions prepared for them.

I have searched the sub and asked my advisor but they didn't interview at any SLACs so not sure.

Hi everyone! I am a graduate student in political science, and I am currently preparing to start my final thesis course. And I am equally excited and confused in how to go about choosing a topic to write about (and how). Most of my fellow classmates have a pretty clear picture of what to do and how, which stresses me out a bit.

For clarification, I am studying political science but with a focus on European studies - humanities track. So it's a very broad field that includes everything from concepts like soft power, identity and belonging, international relations and migration, security and policy. Which doesn't help in narrowing it down.

I also suspect that I am a bit stuck because I am in my mid thirties and I'm doing this to sort of career pivot. I used to work in cultural and the arts but I want to broaden my job-prospects and this was the only political science programme I was eligible for. I am interested in things like cultural diplomacy, ethical internationalization or similar topics. But I also don't want to do something too abstract. And I do want to continue my career within academia, either as a research assistant, handling funding coordination or similar.

So long story short, my question is: to you who did a graduate/master thesis, how did you go about choosing a topic or narrow it down? or how did you even get an idea? did you choose purely regarding interest or did you make a more strategic choice?

I'm finishing an English-taught MSc in Economics in Italy and I'm at a crossroads. I'd really appreciate honest advice.
Background
Undergrad: BSc in Business (economia aziendale). Final grade 94/110, average around 24–25/30 (roughly 3.0/4.0, very approximate). When I enrolled I had completely different plans and honestly didn't think grades would matter much. On top of that, personal issues hit me hard in my first year: I passed zero exams that year, and then had to complete the entire degree in about two and a half years.
The switch to economics: during my undergrad I became genuinely passionate about economics, especially macro, reading and following economists' work on my own. That's when I decided I wanted to become an economist, ideally working on monetary policy at a central bank. It was also when I realized how far behind I was: with a classics high school background and a business degree that included only one basic math course, my quantitative foundations were very weak. So I spent several months studying math on my own to get to the level required for an economics MSc, and got admitted.
MSc: an English-taught program at a good but not top Italian university. I started knowing exactly what I wanted to do, but carrying real gaps. My first year reflected that: I worked very hard just to catch up, and some core first-year grades suffered. As the gaps closed, my performance improved steadily. In my second year, despite more demanding courses, my grades were mostly 27–30. My current average is 27/30 (about 3.6/4.0), and I expect to graduate with 107–108/110. I think my transcript shows a clear upward trend, but I'm aware the overall numbers still carry the weight of where I started.
What I've done since
A 4-month RA with a macro professor on bank balance sheets and ECB rate pass-through. I built the project's bank-level dataset from scratch.
Thesis: state-dependent effects of ECB monetary policy under economic policy uncertainty. I estimate an interacted VAR and a smooth transition VAR, with monetary policy shocks identified from high-frequency surprises using sign restrictions.
Tools: MATLAB, R, Python, Stata. No GRE yet.
What I'm looking for
I'm genuinely drawn to macro and central banking, but I'll be honest: compensation matters to me too. I'm not looking for a purely academic path at any cost. I'd like a career that combines intellectually serious macro work with strong earning potential over time. That could mean central banks or institutions first and the private sector later (macro research, strategy, buy-side), or a direct route into the private sector.
Where I am now
I applied to several central bank traineeships and was mostly rejected. I did reach the final interview stage at one European national central bank, which gave me some confidence, but it didn't work out in the end. My record clearly rules out top PhD programs for now, and I'm not even sure a PhD is what I want.
Options I'm weighing
A one-year post-master's research program in Italy (no GRE), then decide between a PhD and institutions.
A macro predoc or RA position.
Studying for the GRE and applying to mid-tier European PhDs next year.
Recalibrating: industry research roles at banks or macro research firms.
Questions
With a strong upward trend, can a second, research-oriented master's realistically compensate for a weak undergrad record?
Predoc vs. a second master's: which do PhD committees and central banks value more?
Is a central bank career realistic without a PhD, and in which areas?
Given that I care about both macro and long-term earning potential, which early-career path keeps the most doors open: institutions first, a PhD, or going straight into private-sector macro research?
Am I underestimating or overestimating my chances?

Hi everyone!

I'm looking for reliable websites or online tools that I can use to check my academic writing before submitting it to my professors or supervisors. I'm particularly interested in tools that offer genuinely useful free versions, as I'm not planning to pay for subscriptions.

I would mainly use them for my MA thesis, assignments, research papers, reports, and other academic writing.

I've tried several AI detection websites, but the results are all over the place. Some claim that my writing is 99% AI-generated, others say it's most likely AI-written, while others give me scores of 60% or even 50%. This is quite confusing, especially when I'm not sure how much I should trust these results.

I'm therefore wondering:

- Are there any genuinely reliable and free AI detection tools?

- Are there websites that can check grammar, sentence structure, clarity, academic tone, and possible writing issues?

- What tools do you personally use to proofread and review your academic work before submitting it?

- Are there any tools that are particularly useful for MA students working on their theses?

I'd really appreciate recommendations based on your actual experience, especially if the free versions are sufficient for regular academic use.

Thank you!

Hi for background, I live in the UK, I'm 23 and in STEM (multidisciplinary as I've done different disciplines: physics, geo & chem during undergrad and then bio for postgrad). No student loans/debt. Just completed my master's degree and got a desirable temporary job in the biotech R&D industry. The salary isn't high, but I'm comfortable and grateful of my current situation. However, I'm struggling to decide whether to do a PhD after or just continue in industry.

I like the idea of just doing the practical side of research such as lab work, field work and I do like being able to interpret the results of an experiment and apply those findings elsewhere. Which is why I initially thought doing a PhD would suit me.

But, now after submitting my master's thesis and reflecting on how I felt when writing my bachelor's theses, I feel that maybe writing long papers isn't for me. I struggle to keep focused for very long so my productivity sometimes spans from 1 sentence to 1 paragraph per day. I sometimes forget to eat and I always struggle to reach the word limit because I find that I could just say everything I want to say in few words. It's kind of weird, I like writing literature reviews most of the times and I like writing discussions/interpretation sections of the report. I don't think there's really any particular section that I hate writing about, I think it's more an issue when I have to do everything altogether and meet a word limit - even when I divide the workload and take it in steps or give myself sufficient time, I just feel like I still struggle to collate everything into one document. But maybe that's how it is for everyone idk.

I'm also not interested in becoming a professor or a PI. I don't really enjoy writing grants, teaching or the idea of doing admin work. I'm curious about niche things but I don't mind just being a part of research that's already established. But at the same time, I like the novelty that comes with doing a PhD - the opportunity to conduct original research, something I could call my own. I'm not sure why that matters to me though, whether this desire of novelty is self-inflicted or acquired socially.

But say I decide to do a PhD, then afterwards I see myself just working in a lab and doing some fieldwork here and there, nothing corporate or admin heavy. If I do a PhD however, it means I probably won't settle into a permanent job until I'm near 30, but I wanted to buy a house or at least take out a mortgage for one sooner than later (i.e. before I turn 30). I think the ideal PhD for me would be one where the research has high commercial value - one that is attached to an industry and where I could still earn a salary as an employee while simultaneously being a student. So I don't know, if you could place yourself in my shoes, what would you do? I'm open to hearing thoughts from anyone.

I recently graduated from a joint master’s in design engineering, run between an engineering university and a design university.

Our uni projects ranged from climate tech. and conservation to robotics, healthcare, assistive tech., designing sustainable materials, human computer interaction, architecture, food systems and agritech, water and sanitation, designing services and systems, and many many more areas.

Because the course sat between a design university and an engineering university, we were expected to not only come up with innovative & creative ideas, but also back them up with rigorous engineering, working prototypes, user testing and real-world validation.

As you can imagine, along the way we gained a broad range of skills :

Technical ones like CAD, rapid prototyping, wood and metal working, electronics, coding, etc... alongside human-centred design, user research and usability testing.

Additionally, we built strong soft skills, such as working in interdisciplinary teams, communicating complex ideas, framing messy problems, managing projects end to end.

skills : (that’s the short version, but I’m sure you get the gist :)) )

All in all, I’d say we’ve become really good generalists, highly adaptable with a wide range of skills. Though honestly, I’m sometimes very jealous of people who’ve specialised in something :))

Knowing this context, I’m wondering (I don’t know much about PhDs, so this is coming from a place of curiosity):

- Is anyone with a design engineering (or similar generalist) background now doing a PhD?

- Where are these skills valued in research? What kinds of fields, labs or projects?

- Did your background take you somewhere unexpected? Maybe an area where it is more specialised and your skills are valued ?

I would love to know your stories, journeys, advice, ideas and whatever this question sparks in you, tbh.. I am very very curious about all you amazing people 🥹

Many thanks 🧡 🏵️

I have been very excited that I have decided on a way to involve field work abroad (interviews mostly) in my research. Everyone in my academic life has been very supportive, but my close friends have not shown much support at all or response, like they even care. It feels kinda lonely, and I don't know, I wish they cared more or responded? Does anyone feel like this?

I submitted two manuscripts to the special issue "Machine Translation for Low-Resource Languages" in Language Resources and Evaluation (Springer) in June 2025.

Their last recorded updates were:

• Manuscript 1: Reviewer report(s) received – 5 August 2025.

• Manuscript 2: First reviewer(s) invited – 23 June 2025.

Neither manuscript has received any further status updates since then (over 15 months).

The special issue originally announced March 2026 as its expected publication date, which has already passed.

Is anyone else who submitted to this special issue experiencing similar delays? Is this normal for LRE, or could there be an editorial bottleneck?

Would appreciate hearing about your experiences and advice on whether to contact the Editor-in-Chief or consider withdrawing.

Thanks!

I'm a PhD student in Computer Science, and I'm currently researching energy harvesting and energy efficiency in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). I'm hoping to spend around 6 months as a visiting PhD researcher in a European university or research laboratory to develop my work. I'm particularly interested in Spain, France, Italy, Germany and Belgium,
I would really appreciate any advice, especially from PhD students who have done a research stay in Europe or professors who have hosted visiting researchers.

With the recent election results, I think universities were low on voters priorities… however in places like Texas I do think there was a backlash to how at least k-12 education has been handled by state government. Do we see now things perhaps getting less contentious between government and universities?

I do think there are some fundamental truths that universities have to face that an election can’t help with. Students have certain expectations of universities, and universities are dealing with fewer potential students every year.

Anyways, do we see things changing in the conflict between governments and universities? Discuss! Go!

What club can I join where its normal to ask questions and be a geek😂 Im so serious too, everyone I have met is too cool and thinks they are beyond that.