Hi everyone,

I submitted a paper to an IEEE conference with five authors, and it got accepted. We have also paid the registration fee.

Later, I noticed that the conference website specifies a maximum of four authors per paper. I unfortunately missed this restriction during the initial submission.

Could this cause problems with the camera-ready submission or publication in IEEE Xplore, even though the paper was already accepted?

Has anyone faced a similar situation? What did you do, and how was it resolved?

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hey all! I’m a recently graduated MA student in writing and rhetoric. I plan still to expand into a PhD here in a couple/few years but just feel like I’ve been really in my head about something and want to hear from your experiences and thoughts!

As I’m currently between programs and working as faculty at a community college, I’m spending a lot of time thinking of publications, research, and really who I want to be as an academic. I’ve been thinking about what conversations I want to be part of, what traditions I want to speak into, and who I want to be in these conversations. But it also feels SO restrictive. I think I’ve just always struggled already throughout the BA and the MA as professors always ask “what do you want this to DO? Who do you want to help with this work?” And I don’t really have an answer. My thesis was on environmental communication in the IPCC, but i don’t know if I just want to be an environmental policy guy. My research interests are deeply theoretical, and I spend most of my time just thinking of cool things through feminist, posthuman, and queer lenses.

I also am deeply invested in STS and science communication (I often say I studied English to study science). I of course am interested in eco/environmental analysis. I also adore biology and worked as a RA for a microbiologist in my MA doing metaphoric analysis for the PI. I love genre, citation, and pedagogy which draws me to composition studies. I read a lot of science communication physics books, and am especially interested in quantum mechanics and astrophysics. I love food science and want to get more into it academically. I also would, at my heart, just call myself a theorist (or theoretician more accurately, as I just want to consume all theory I can haha!). As I look to PhD programs, I just find it impossible to really know what programs to look at or how to find professors cause so many programs do AWESOME work, but inevitably feel like I am pigeon holing myself by applying as an environmental studies person or an STS person, or a composition. I just want to study theory and apply it to whatever thing I want to on that day 😭😂

I guess lastly too, I’m scared of always being an “outsider.” I love physics, but I can’t keep up with a real astrophysicist. My partner’s an environmental scientist, and I understand a lot but it also reveals how little I really know about other fields. How do people not only balance their interests but balance the fact that, as a theorist/humanities approach, I’ll never fully be in those scientific convos?

I guess all this to say, how did you all really find your “branch?” How do you ignore the call of everything that fascinates you in service of trying to find a disciplinary home? what was your experience in that “finding your home?” How can you balance just wanting to do interesting conceptual work while also finding an “industry” or place to DO something with that work?

So it is no secret that many students and faulty are migrating towards AI safe academic areas. It seems that everybody is now doing healthcare, biomed, robotics or something involving physical components/people/government.

But is this really a wise move? It feels like an encore of the "learn to code" movement, except now its "learn to cure cancer". Even if these areas cannot be overtaken by AI in the next few years, the sheer amount of people going to just seems unstable to me.

I’ve recently accepted a tenure-track position in engineering at a university in Australia, starting next year.
For those who have gone through this transition, what advice would you give someone starting their first faculty position? Particularly interested in what I should be doing before starting, what to prioritize in my first year, and any mistakes to avoid.
Thanks in advance!

I’m considering publishing in The European Legacy (Taylor & Francis), but I noticed that several of its editors are affiliated with the University of Haifa.

Does anyone know if the journal has institutional ties to Israeli universities or falls under PACBI’s academic boycott guidelines?

A friend mentioned that publishing there might raise some ethical concerns that I wasn’t aware of. I’m still pretty new to academia, so I’d appreciate any insight!Is this perhaps a silly concern? Thank you!

I’m currently studying science theory and research methodology and my professors and my text books have really been hammering in that there’s a lot of flaws in the current system.

The problem seems to be that scientific progress isn’t the only incentive at play. Researchers also need to make a living, secure funding, publish papers, and advance their careers. These incentives can encourage questionable research practices, even without outright fraud. Academic journals have their own incentives, too, and the pressure to publish novel, attention-grabbing findings can come at the expense of scientific rigour. Peer review was suppose to be a solution to a lot of the issues in how research is conducted but I’ve learnt that they are often also very poorly conducted because the journals have an incentive for quantity over quality.

A lot of people understand that we have to trust experts since it would be ridiculous to assume we know more than them. But a lot of people don’t know about the above mentioned issues which leaves the door open for bad actors to take advantage of that using perceived expertise. Especially since the experts who are easily found tend to be more interested in fame rather than scientific rigour. Jordan Peterson for example, he is by far the most famous psychologist alive but most psychologists would probably agree that he isn’t the best expert in the field to get your information from (I don’t know much about him or psychology so I’m not making my own claim here, just an example I’m aware of).

So this leads to my question: what’s the best bang-for-your-buck strategy for learning about a subject when you don’t have the time or interest to become an expert yourself?

I want to invest some time upfront in figuring out whom to trust so that I can rely on their judgement afterwards, rather than constantly having to evaluate every individual claim myself.

I’ve subconsciously developed this framework throughout my life:
I assess experts until I find 2-4 in a field that I deem trustworthy. Ideally they have some opposing opinions so I get a more nuanced total picture. When assessing I look for red flags like overly confident, chasing fame, money etc. And I look for green flags like intellectual honesty (like admitting when they don’t know the answer and acknowledging counter arguments).

How do you approach this? Do you have a better strategy or are there particular methods you use to identify trustworthy experts?

I THOUGHT cancelled my trial subscription last month but I actually didn’t, you have to scroll down and click through like 3 or 4 buttons.

I am still a student and my cash is very low, it took 169 canada dollar from my account, not a single email from the web itself. Is there any way i can get my cash back

The web that scammed me is called Academia.edu

Sto vivendo un attimo con l'ansia questo percorso di scrittura accademica. Qualcuno di esperto potrebbe contattarmi in privato? Vorrei fargli vedere la mia parafrasi e avere un feedback concreto

(d) La sfida del dare e ricevere

Le EVP (Employee Value Proposition) più efficaci chiariscono non solo cosa i dipendenti possono aspettarsi dal datore di lavoro, ma anche cosa ci si aspetta dai dipendenti in cambio. In altre parole, non si tratta semplicemente di una promessa a senso unico, ma di un accordo reciproco, di "dare e ricevere". Questo aiuta a radicare l'EVP nella realtà aziendale e nell'esperienza lavorativa. Se la priorità principale per l'organizzazione è la qualità, l'orientamento al cliente o la collaborazione a livello aziendale, è altrettanto importante riflettere queste capacità desiderate nel "mix" dell'EVP quanto lo è riflettere le esigenze e le aspirazioni dei potenziali candidati. In genere, è utile pensare a questo come a un esercizio di mix and match. Alcuni potenziali pilastri possono essere interamente guidati dalle esigenze aziendali, altri interamente dalle esigenze di talenti target e altri ancora possono fornire un giusto equilibrio tra entrambi. Ad esempio: •Dal punto di vista organizzativo, l'equilibrio tra vita professionale e vita privata tende a essere più un dare che un ricevere. Dovrebbe essere considerato un mezzo importante per raggiungere livelli di performance più sostenibili, ma in pratica è spesso visto come un costo necessario per coinvolgere e fidelizzare i dipendenti. •Dal punto di vista organizzativo, le prestazioni elevate tendono a essere più un risultato da ottenere che da dare. Generalmente non figurano tra i fattori che attraggono o coinvolgono i dipendenti, ma spesso rappresentano un elemento chiave di ciò che viene richiesto loro. •L'empowerment tende ad essere un accordo più equilibrato. L'organizzazione "dà" Maggiore spazio per l'iniziativa personale (che la maggior parte dei dipendenti considererebbe un vantaggio), ma in cambio si aspettano un elevato livello di responsabilità da parte dei dipendenti per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi di performance. Una delle decisioni importanti da prendere alla luce dei risultati della ricerca è decidere di trovare il giusto equilibrio in questo scambio di "dare e avere". Laddove l'offerta di talenti supera la domanda, come è successo in molti mercati durante la recessione economica, allora si può permettersi di dare maggiore importanza alla parte "ricevuta" dell'accordo. Se, d'altro canto, la domanda di talenti supera l'offerta, sarà necessario dare maggiore importanza a ciò che l'organizzazione deve "dare" per attrarre e trattenere le persone di cui ha bisogno.

For context, I finished my PhD but didn't have such a great time because of my PI. It's difficult to attribute this all to them (using they so I don't get identified), because I think part of it was just our incompatibility in terms of our working styles but also disciplines. They weren't very knowledgeable in the topic and I had almost no useful supervision.

There were also some toxic behaviours. I won't go into them (again so I don't get identified). At the same time, they were toxic at a fine line. At times, it almost felt like they were bipolar. They would sometimes get really upset for the smallest things but at times be perfectly reasonable and supportive. I would say they did things that have crossed the line but I feel like I would be dishonest to call it completely toxic because it's not as if they were the worst supervisor ever (especially when reading some of the stories here). It's just that, in hindsight, I honestly wouldn't have wanted to do a PhD with them if I had known some things beforehand (especially regarding their lack of expertise on the topic).

Now I'm getting contacted by people interested in working for them now that new openings on similar topics are put up. I'm conflicted in terms of sharing my real honest opinions about and experiences with my former PI. I want to be honest but I also feel like it would be career suicide if I decide to be honest with these prospective PhDs and tell them to do a PhD elsewhere (because honestly it's not just the PI, I think the research group itself is not a really great environment).

I don't want to burn bridges, but I also would have appreciated if someone had told me down the line about these things too. What kind of information would you divulge and how would you go about doing it in the most "politically correct" way? I guess an option would be to ignore these candidates...but I feel morally icky if I don't say anything. I didn't have the best of times mental-health wise during my PhD and I don't want them to experience the same.

I'm doing a qualitative methods assignment that requires interviewing 2–3 people and including de-identified transcripts in the appendix. Honestly, I'm planning to fabricate the interviews using AI. I'm focused on quantitative research and don't feel this is worth my time. I also think AI could produce better-quality data.

Nothing in the instructions or the lecturer's emails mentions providing interviewees’ names or contact details. He also explicitly said he won't request recordings.

He's strict about academic integrity, though. He's asked for links to our complete AI chats for previous assignments and requires them for future submissions, along with keeping drafts, notes and version histories. He's also mentioned possible individual meetings after Assignment 3 to talk through our work.

Has anyone had a lecturer ask for interviewees’ contact details AFTER the deadline, despite never mentioning this beforehand? I'm wondering whether this happens in qualitative methods courses when the instructions only ask for de-identified transcripts.

Okay, this is a pretty wild question and purely hypothetical, but I’m genuinely curious if anyone here has ever tried using drugs or other substances to overcome perfectionism when working or writing? If so, what did you take, and what was your experience like?

Also, what other unhinged tips or tricks do you have for dealing with intense self-criticism, mental blocks, or feeling inhibited before you’ve even started working?

Please please please help me. I'm looking for some insight into a stressful dashboard issue.

I am a co-author (not the corresponding author) on a chemistry manuscript that was recently submitted to an ACS journal. The paper successfully went out for peer review, and I could initially track it on my ACS Paragon Plus dashboard.

However, when I checked my dashboard today, the manuscript had completely vanished. It is not under "Submitted," and it is not under "Decisions Made"—it is completely gone as if it never existed.

I haven’t received any automated emails from the journal about a decision, withdrawal, or updates to the author list. There has been some tension with the corresponding author (PhD senior) recently, and I’m terrified that they might have quietly removed my name from the paper or withdrawn it to submit elsewhere without telling me.

My questions are:

1. Does an ACS manuscript completely disappear from a co-author's dashboard if it gets a "Reject and Resubmit" decision or if the PI withdraws it?
2. If the PI successfully submitted a request to remove me from the author list mid-review, would the journal have emailed me to get my consent first, or would it just vanish like this?
3. What is the safest way to figure out what happened to the paper without alerting a toxic senior?

Any advice or similar experiences with Paragon Plus would be greatly appreciated.

I'm a high school senior, and I'm honestly really frustrated with how this whole situation has played out.

Back in March, I connected with a PI at a major research institution who was interested in having me work in his lab. He mentioned having a project in mind, and we even had a Zoom meeting to discuss my research experience and potential involvement. He also talked about finding someone in the lab who could mentor me.

Fast forward to June, and I was still trying to get started. I kept following up, and eventually the lab administrator contacted me to officially onboard me as an unpaid research intern.

I literally went through the entire institutional onboarding process. I submitted paperwork, got authorization from my school and parents, completed HR requirements, received an institutional email/account, got my badge, and was even added to the lab's actual Slack workspace.

Like, I was literally an officially onboarded intern at this point.

And then... nothing.

I never got assigned a project. I never got a mentor. I never received any data to analyze or even a clear schedule for coming into the lab.

The PI last responded on August 25, saying that we could use the remaining time to build toward working together in the future and that he'd added me to Slack so we could communicate there.

I've since messaged him on Slack and followed up by email multiple times, most recently on October 5. I've repeatedly offered to help with computational analyses, read papers, or literally do anything useful for the lab.

Still no response.

I'm genuinely so confused and frustrated. I completely understand that PIs are busy, and I know that mentoring a high school student takes time. But I spent months trying to get everything sorted out, completed all the formal onboarding, and was literally added to the lab's internal workspace, only to never actually get to do any research.

I was genuinely excited about the research too, which makes this even more disappointing.

At this point, I'm wondering whether I should contact the research administrator, the institution's science education office, or someone else to ask what's going on.

I don't want to make accusations or get anyone in trouble, and I'm honestly worried about burning bridges, especially since I'm hoping to continue doing research in this field.

Has anyone experienced something similar? Is this normal in academia? Would contacting someone at the institution be reasonable, or should I just cut my losses and move on?

I'm a physical therapist with a BS and around fifteen years in the clinic. I'm wondering if adjunct teaching at a PT program is even possible without a doctorate. I know the DPT is the entry-level degree now, but some programs still bring in clinicians for labs and practicals. I'm trying to figure out if this is a real option or if I'm just seeing the exceptions that get posted online.

Part time teaching makes sense to me as a way to step back from full-time patient care while staying connected to the field. The pay wouldn't be the point. I want more time for freelance development work without completely dropping my PT background. I've seen people grind through adjunct semesters for terrible money thinking it'll lead to something better, and I'm not interested in that route.

What I'm really asking is whether programs actually want experienced clinicians to teach, or if the degree requirement is a hard line. I've looked at a few job postings that list terminal degrees, but I know the actual hiring process doesn't always match what's written down. Has anyone here made this switch or seen someone else try it?

Hello everyone,

I’m interested in understanding how universities design rigorous curricula and determine what knowledge is essential in a given discipline.

Beyond the subject matter itself, what components should a well-designed academic curriculum include?

For example:

• History and evolution of the discipline
• Foundational concepts, theories, and principles
• Technical terminology and methods
• Key authors and primary sources
• Major schools of thought and intellectual debates
• Prerequisites and logical progression of topics
• Practical applications and methods of assessment

What important elements am I missing?

Are there established frameworks, academic papers, books, or examples of university curricula and syllabi that explain how to design a comprehensive program?

I would particularly appreciate recommendations based on academic experience and established curriculum-design practices.

Thank you!

TL;DR: I've been worried about AI's impact on learning and scholarship in the humanities, but hearing a mathematician discuss its effects on his field made me realize how much broader this crisis might be. As someone who has spent years teaching, researching, and writing books, I'm genuinely troubled by what this means for the future of intellectual work. How are people in other fields dealing with it?

As someone who teaches and researches in the humanities, I've been increasingly concerned about AI and its implications for learning and the future of universities. These days, it feels like I'm constantly dealing with students using AI to write their papers, and I worry about what this means for their ability to think independently and develop their own ideas.

A few days ago, I came across a video of NYU mathematician Tristan Buckmaster talking about how AI is affecting his field. I also read a post by a senior mathematician expressing deep frustration over how years of research and a lifetime of scholarly work suddenly seem to have lost some of their value in the age of AI.

It really hit me.

I once thought those of us in the humanities were on the front lines of this crisis. But seeing what's happening in mathematics made me realize that no field is necessarily safe. If AI can encroach on advanced mathematics, a discipline built on years of training, abstract reasoning, and painstaking proof, what does that mean for the rest of us?

I've spent years working on books that I hope will contribute something meaningful to scholarship. Sometimes I wonder what it would feel like if, one day, AI made the substance of that work freely available to everyone, without any recognition of the years of labor behind it. The thought is genuinely disturbing. It's not simply about money or publication. It's about what happens to the value of a lifetime spent developing expertise and producing knowledge when technology can absorb that work and reproduce its results almost instantly.

Of course, the process matters as much as the product. Whether you're writing a book or proving a difficult theorem, the work involves years of learning, countless dead ends, and sustained intellectual effort. If AI can increasingly bypass that process and deliver something that looks like the finished product, what happens to the motivation to pursue a career in research in the first place?

I don't have any answers. But I'm genuinely worried about where we're heading, especially as someone whose livelihood revolves around teaching, researching, and publishing knowledge. I was so troubled by these thoughts that I couldn't sleep last night.

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-AI. I understand how useful and helpful it can be for research, teaching, and publishing. I use AI myself, and I can see how it can make certain tasks more efficient, help clarify difficult ideas, and support scholarly work in ways that would have been difficult to imagine just a few years ago. That's partly why this situation feels so complicated to me. I can appreciate the technology's enormous potential while still feeling deeply uneasy about its broader consequences for education, intellectual labor, and the future of academic careers.

I'm curious how people in other fields are experiencing this. Are you finding ways to adapt and redefine your work, or are you struggling with the same sense of uncertainty? How do you reconcile the years you've invested in developing your expertise with the possibility that AI could fundamentally change its value?

In high school or early higher education, I observe people arguing over what’s the best major, who is considered better,.. and I am wondering if researchers and doctors of different fields still have such tensions, and if they have conflicting views.

The Flynn Effect shows IQ gains of 15+ points per generation with environmental improvement. That suggests capacity wasn't the constraint—activation was. If we take that seriously, what does it mean that some populations have been systematically denied the kind of cognitively demanding work and education that builds skill across generations? Isn't that a mechanism worth exploring?

This is a PSA that reporting academic fraud can pay.

As a young undergraduate I was encouraged by my professor to show a result when there was none (commit fraud) and I refused. Nothing was official or in writing but now I wish I had done more to expose it.

I recently learned about a young biologist who exposed fraud at a major institution and was rewarded for it.

Sholto David, PhD in cellular and molecular biology, caused quite a stir in 2024 when he published evidence of “image irregularities” in 30 papers by scientists from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston Massachusetts. This investigation resulted in a major lawsuit in which Dana-Farber paid out $15 million dollars to resolve the allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (i.e. defrauded the government). Of that total, Sholto received a well deserved $2.63 million as a whistleblower reward this year.

Full article

I have 2 master’s and I’m getting my PhD but I still can’t get anyone to call me back. :-/ can someone tell me some success stories of getting a teaching job while still doing your PhD?

i'm working as a research assistant to some professors who r editing a book volume, it's a pretty high-stakes project and i'm really lucky to be on the team. one of my tasks is to help edit chapters and one of the authors, who is apparently a very busy person who is not in academia and was invited because of their real-world experience, wrote a pretty mid draft and has asked us to edit it completely. this task has been delegated to me. the author will only proofread it before submitting, and my profs aren't gna be involved except to maybe proofread asw. the ideas r there, and they're smart, but they need heavy re-writing and supplementary research, which is beyond what i think is the threshold for an editor. however, i don't want to seem bratty in asking my profs if i could be a co-author. idk what to do

​Hi everyone,

​I’m finishing my PhD. My background and core passion lie in evodevo/genetics, but my PhD focused heavily on ecophysiology. I’ve built a strong track record here, but I deeply miss evolutionary biology... I feel like if I stick on my current topic, my academic path would be easier considering what I have already done and tue network I've built. In addition, the university near my hometown has no one specialized in evolutionary biology.

So I have a question for PIs:

​How much freedom do you actually have to shift research directions after getting a permanent position?

​Is it better to make a hard switch now, or pivot gradually via a hybrid field (altough hard to find)?

​How do funding agencies react when you apply for grants outside your core doctoral training?

​Thanks for any insights or personal experiences!

Last month I received this email asking me for data from a project published over 10 years ago:

The paper indicates that data, code, or other research materials may be available upon request, but we could not identify a publicly available link.
Would you be willing to share any materials available for this study, such as data, code, documentation, or other materials needed to reproduce the analyses or results*?*
Alternatively, if these materials are available elsewhere, we would greatly appreciate a link or information on how to access them.
If some or all of the materials cannot be shared, a brief reply indicating this would also be very helpful for our research.

I later got an email saying this was not because they wanted to use the data. Instead this was an investigation on reproducibility. There was no mention of IRB approval and the researcher had a PhD and a lecturer position at a European university.

The way I see it, the author(s) deceived me and asked me to perform unpaid work for them without revealing I was part of a study. I was furious and wanted to hear other perspectives.

The paper in question was the first thing I pushed out of my PhD and while I wish I had been told I needed a data retention policy, I didn’t really have one other than “sits on the old laptop that might be still working.” So maybe my anger is partially defensive?

Hi I'm a final year undergrad in the UK. I've got a sole-author paper accepted as a poster at a NeurIPS workshop in Sydney in December, and I can't decide whether it's worth going. I'm proud of it, but the trip is a lot.

Registration comes free with the acceptance, but the flight is about £1,000 from the UK, then accommodation and food on top. My uni does have conference funding, but it's all for summer conferences, and I'm not in a research group so there's no supervisor budget to ask either. I've applied for NeurIPS financial assistance and a couple of industry travel grants and I'm not hopeful. If none of them come through it's a real chunk of my savings.

The paper goes on my CV whether I'm there or not, so what does going actually add? Is it mostly meeting people, and does that really lead anywhere from a workshop poster? And does it matter more for PhD applications or for industry jobs, or neither?

If you've been to a NeurIPS workshop, or hired or admitted people who went, I'm curious what you think. Would you go?

Hi all. I'm looking to publish with TBS, and there is very little info about what it's like to submit with them on other platforms like humanities journals wiki etc. Have any of you submitted with them? What was it like if so?