New arXiv policy banning researchers who hallucinate citations. On one hand, we have to keep AI slop away. On the other, is a one year ban on the author harsh?
Short version: How do I turn myself into a researcher in a month? (1 month is not a deadline, but I want to start something asap instead of being chronically confused like this) I have no experience and no support from my supervisor or labmates whatsover, so please share applicable real steps..
Long version: I am a graduate student in china in pharmacy department. My supervisor's research is about structure pharmaceutics and Advanced drug delivery systems, working on MOF and now COF. These details can be overlooked because the real problem is, I do not know how to come up with a project idea.
Apparently, research in China means that your supervisor is completely isolated from you. The only advice I got since I've come here is that I must learn the techniques such as LC-MS and HPLC.. I've seen my labmates do them, I've read about them, but since I have not tried any technique myself (not allowed unless it is for a pre-determined project, which I do not have) I lack the required deep understanding about them
This started feeling like a rant.. point being is, how do I do research if I was never a researcher? how do I read efficiently and how do I even begin to identify a research gap?
I’ve been working as a Math & Statistics tutor at a public community college in the Chicago suburbs for 7 years. For most of that time the tutoring center was a normal, decent place to work.
Everything changed after a new manager took over. Since then it’s been going downhill fast.
Last September I was suddenly called into a meeting with two supervisors. They told me a student had complained that he “felt uncomfortable” during a tutoring session with me. They gave me a verbal warning. The problem? They refused to tell me:
I was never given any chance to defend myself or even understand what the accusation was about.
Then in March this year they called me in again. This time they said another student had complained back in January about feeling uncomfortable during a session with me in October last year. Again, zero details. No name, no date, no specific words or actions, no evidence.
Now HR is involved and they are treating these as part of “progressive discipline,” threatening me with termination, even though neither complaint has ever been proven or properly documented.
What makes this even more insane is that my own supervisor admitted in writing that the first complaint was only verbal and that they have no written record or documentation at all about it.
They keep hiding behind FERPA, saying they can’t tell me the student’s name. I’m not even asking for the name. I just want to know what I’m actually being accused of so I can defend myself. They refuse to give me even that basic information.
This feels like a straight-up witch hunt. I’m being punished for things that may not have even happened, with zero evidence and zero opportunity to respond. It honestly reminds me of those dystopian stories where people are accused but never told what the charges are, like living in North Korea or Stalin’s Russia. At least the victims back then were told what they were supposedly guilty of.
Has anyone else experienced something like this at a community college or public institution?
I am ready to talk to anyone over phone or email.
So, I am a new faculty (almost completing my second year), at an R1 research university. I have a masters student who has been driving me crazy. They never seem to understand the expectations or guidelines needed for anything. I have been asking them to do a literature review for past four months. Tried developing an outline with them to follow and expected that they would look for the papers in the related field. But it seems like from last four months, they have made zero progress. They seem to just ignore all the deadlines and I feel seemed awfully ready to share a very underbaked lit review with the committee. There have been multiple instances where I tried giving feedback on data analysis and presentation development but it seems like they just don’t want to listen. They literally submitted a poster without giving me appropriate time to give feedback on if the edits even make sense. Currently I am feeling like they are always ready to circumvent me at any point regardless of the concerned task. I am in my early thirties and a woman would it be reasonable to think, they don’t consider me a figure of some authority or knowledge or if I need to follow certain principles in the mentorship. I feel like I am failing as a P.I. here. Any advice would be appreciated.
If you are in the humanities, I am curious to hear what your department's views are on commercial vs. university presses for tenure reviews.
I have heard from colleagues that university presses are preferable, even in fields where important scholarship is also being published by presses like Palgrave Macmillan, Bloomsbury, and Routledge.
You could even argue that these commercial presses publish more relevant work and that seeking to publish with any given university press just because it has university in its name is pretty arbitrary.
I'm watching friends finish their humanities PhDs with impressive publication records and conference presentations, yet they're hitting walls with postdoc applications and tenure-track jobs. One just got rejected from a fellowship where they were told the pool had 400 applicants for 2 spots. At what point do you decide that the academic dream isn't worth the mental toll? Is there a clear sign that it's time to pivot to alt-ac careers, or do you just keep grinding until something breaks?
I have a PhD in psychology with a somatic focus on eating disorders. Not clinical psychology, which seems to be what most university positions want. If I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, I would probably have done clinical psychology but it is what it is. I'm not affiliated with any institution and don't plan on going back for a PhD in clinical psychology.
I work in the coaching realm - I've created downloadable resources, sometimes run group courses, have a podcast, etc. Research still fascinates me though.
A few ideas Im considering -
A pilot program evaluation for a retreat I'm hosting — measuring evidence-based elements, participant outcomes, changes in anxiety and related variables.
An MBRP (Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention) study specific to binge eating. MBRP is well-established but hasn't been tested in this population specifically. I'm certified in MBRP, I know the literature, and I think there's something genuinely novel there.
I've thought both through seriously — variables, existing literature, what would make them novel contributions. But nobody is paying me for this. It would be a significant time investment on top of an already full plate, with no salary and no institutional support behind it.
So honestly - do I just let this go? Or is there actually a realistic path for someone in my position to contribute to research in a meaningful way? Specifically wondering:
Is there any funding available for independent researchers with no institutional affiliation? Are there working models for this - citizen science, independent research networks, anything - or is the honest reality that without an institution it's mostly unpaid labor with limited reach? thank you kindly
After taking all three sciences, i have noticed that chemistry has been my absolute favourite and the one im best at, biology has been my second favourite but im not that great at memorization (or maybe because i took it in summer school), and physics being the one i hate the most and am the worst at. My initial plan for university was to go into engineering, although after pretty much failing physics (i'm ib so i would get like 50's raw and they would convert to mid 80's), i have decided to look into other potential majors that include mostly chemistry (but not pure chemistry) with slight bits of biology and physics. Do any of you guys have any suggestions?
I cold emailed a bunch of professors about research, and one of them (based in India) finally replied, saying they’d like to work with me and liked my previous work.
I’m confused about 3 things:
Would appreciate advice from anyone who’s done this before.
If you have a teacher that gives an exorbitant amount of extra credit assignments weekly and then still has about 80% of that class fail. What does that say to you??
Is that a teacher or a student problem??
Has anyone successfully returned to academia after leaving to pursue a career in industry? If so, how did you pull it off? What advice do you have?
My school announced me as valedictorian and then took it away because the board of education revealed a paper that said valedictorian needs to be chosen based on 2nd marking periods result (the 7th semester of high school). This paper was meant to be applied from 1999 but the whole school was unaware of it for the last 28 or more years. The school has been choosing valedictorian based on 3rd marking period result. According to that I was 1st, so the school announced me as valedictorian. But the parents of the student who was first in second marking period brought the paper to the school's attention. The student's dad is also in the board of education and they are pressuring the school to follow that paper's rule. For the last 28 years and maybe more, the school was unaware of this rule but when it's my turn, suddenly the rules came to light. Everything was done, my speech, my essay for valedictorian breakfast bla bla bla. Even for the second marking period, some of my courses were not added and no explanation was given for that. The principal apologised (literally begged) and said the higher ups are just being too pushy. I asked for co valedictorian but our school doesn't even do that. And none of the teachers or studentd were given the explanation as to why the valedictorian changed in like a few weeks after declaration. And everyone keeps asking me what I did and everything is so fucking ass right now... But i guess at least I will be graduating as first of my graduation class and that's the final transcript that will go to my colleges...
For context, I currently have an MFA in Creative Writing and am an adjunct English professor at a two year college here in Oklahoma.
I'm hoping to get more into the administration side of education and have been accepted into Pepperdine's Ed.D program. However, I was told by a friend of mine that a Ph.D might be better. I always thought the Edd program would be better for those wanting to move into higher education admin roles, but I'm not sure so I thought I'd ask.
Any thoughts welcome. Thanks!
Hi all, I’m looking for advice. I have recently finished my PhD focused on engineering simulations with AI and I’ve worked really hard on it for the past 4 years, and have developed some habits along the way. The first habit I’ve noticed is that I really enjoy diving deep into a research/technology project topic when it is exciting and thrilling. This is especially so when I feel like I can run experiments/proof of concepts on my laptop and want to tackle it immediately. However, I do find myself getting overly consumed by it which affects my state-of-mind during the day and night. One particularly issue is that the thought of work stays in my head which keeps me from falling asleep (as I’m typing this Reddit message now lmao). This leads to me staying up and sometimes sleeping any time between 2am and 6am. I also think that the peace and quiet at night allows me to think clearly and reflect on the day’s work which keeps my mind active… Since I sleep late, I get up pretty late the next day, usually around 12pm and I feel like I’ve wasted my morning and get suck into the feeling of needing to be productive in the afternoon where research/work is the main priority and everything else isn’t. I do feel like living a life this way isn’t healthy in the long-run. This had been my routine for the most of phd and I’m currently working as a full-time researcher now but I felt that I have not moved on to better habits. Does anyone have similar experiences and have any suggestions to improve my lifestyle?
I teach graphic design at a small liberal arts college in the US. Lately I've noticed more students in my introductory classes who clearly don't care about design. They tell me they're here because they couldn't get into computer science, or because business seemed too competitive, or because their parents said art was useless but design felt practical enough. I do my best to meet them where they are. But it's exhausting to pour energy into lessons on typography and visual hierarchy when half the room is just waiting for the semester to end. The students who actually want to be there get dragged down by the ones who are openly disengaged. I know this isn't unique to design. Colleagues in humanities and social sciences mention similar patterns. What I'm trying to figure out is how much of this is my responsibility to fix. Do I keep trying to convert the skeptical ones? Do I adjust my teaching to assume low interest and hope the motivated students find their own way? Or do I just accept that part of my job is serving students who don't want to be here and protect my energy for the ones who do? For faculty in any field, how do you draw that line without burning out or becoming cynical?
Mixed parametric and non-parametric tests within same study — is this valid?
Hi r/statistics (or r/AskStatistics),
I'm writing up a psychology thesis and have a methods question I'd love some input on.
I'm comparing two conditions (problem-focused vs solution-focused news) on seven emotion ratings using independent samples t-tests. For each variable I checked normality with Shapiro-Wilk and homogeneity of variance with Levene's, and applied the following decision rule consistently across all seven emotions:
Normal distribution + equal variances → Student's t
Normal distribution + unequal variances → Welch's t
Non-normal distribution → Mann-Whitney U
This means most emotions were analysed with t-tests/Welch's, but two (Joy and Calm) were analysed with Mann-Whitney due to significant Shapiro-Wilk results.
My question is: is it valid to report these side by side in the same results table, and can I meaningfully compare the pattern of findings across emotions even though they used different tests? I'm not directly comparing effect sizes across tests (Cohen's d vs rank-biserial r) but I am drawing general conclusions about which emotions showed larger vs smaller differences between conditions.
Any input appreciated!
I'm an architecture student considering an idea for my thesis. However, it's a thesis idea which will require some interviews or back and forth with professional and academic leaders outside of my department, specifically with my university's Earth and Environmental Science Department.
What is the general courtesy with emailing professors outside your department for casual interviews or brainstorming sessions? Is it better to find out their office hours and see them in person or should I call them instead? Is there a specific way to word my email and how long should I wait before emailing back, if at all?
I'm generally just not sure if cold-emailing or cold calling is appropriate, especially since other STE(A)M fields might have different expectations to my own architecture department.
I am a rising senior who has spent my undergrad preparing for a PhD, with the long-term goal of transitioning to industry and founding a startup (specifically focused on world models).
My main concern right now is Intellectual Property. I've read that if a company or product is tied to university research or resources, the institution can claim around 50%+ ownership. Giving up that much equity is a big concern for me.
I genuinely want to do a PhD for the learning experience and to build the credibility and technical foundation necessary to attract investors. I've worked hard to become a competitive applicant: a 3.9 GPA, multiple graduate courses, an NSF-funded REU, and two separate paid university research positions in math and CS. I also do not want to pay out of pocket for a Master's degree.
Because of my love for research, I kept pushing this IP conflict to the back burner. But now that I am at this point, I am wavering.
How restrictive are university IP policies in practice? Is there a way to safely pursue a PhD without compromising the IP of my future startup? Should I not pursue a PhD? Is Industry research an option even without a PhD? Any advice or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated.
In this Reddit on the ask teachers subreddit (https://old.reddit.com/r/..._do_right/), so many teachers claim that you just need to study hard, do all the work, ask questions, and be curious. That’s all it takes to get As. Yet, so many professors talk about how so many students can work hard and study hard and still fail let alone get As. Professors always say “we grade based on work produced, not the effort put in”. I feel part of the reason why students come unprepared for college is that teachers have completely different ideas for what is considered efficient studying, so they pass on bad ideas to their students
Male, 23
Finished both a bachelor’s and now almost done with a master’s, and I’ve started noticing a very consistent limit in my cognitive stamina. I’m curious if this is actually "normal" or if other people experience the same thing.
My limits seem to be:
* Around 2000 words/day of genuinely high-quality academic writing
* About 3 hours of deep focused work with zero distractions and full brainpower
* Around 6–7 hours total sitting/working with breaks before I’m completely mentally done
And I mean DONE done. Like after that point, even if the exam/project is super important for my future, my brain and body just switch into suffering mode. I can still force myself to continue, but the quality drops hard and everything feels painful.
What surprises me is how consistent this has been throughout my life. Childhood, university, now mid-20s, same pattern.
Does anyone else have a hard upper limit like this? Especially people in academia, programming, research, law, medicine, etc. Curious what your “real” limit is versus what society expects us to be capable of.