text:
Article transfer in Elsevier
I submitted an article to a journal of Elsevier. This paper was peer-reviewed and I received a transfer suggestion to a list of five suggested journals of Elsevier. I revised my article according to the reviewers' comments and submitted it to one of these journals. The new journal has a higher impact factor and my submission is subscription. The status of submission is "Submitted to Journal" for a week. My questions:

In this case, the status of submission is needed to change to "With Editor", "Under Review" and "Decision in Process"? or may be my revised article has been sent to the original reviewers of the first journal?
How is the chance of getting published in this case?

Thank you for your reply.

So if I understand, you submitted a paper, it was sent out for review and then rejected with the option to transfer after review but before you submitted revisions. So you revised it and resubmitted through the transfer desk.
Your article should have been sent to the new journal where it will be assigned a new editor and the process will start all over. So, yes, you'll probably see the status change to "With Editor" or "Editor Assigned" first. Then they may or may not ask for new reviews. If the original reviewers never actually saw your revisions, I bet they will just reach back out to them, but it depends on many things.
It's been a while because the transfer desk is slow and the new journal may be slow to process it. In my experience the transfer desk is slower than just resubmitting from scratch (and not always more convenient).
It's impossible to know the chances of getting published. It depends on the paper, the reviews, the journal, and why it was rejected in the first place. I would say the chances are probably no better or worse than if you had submitted the paper normally. Big publishers have an interest in putting out as many papers as possible and keeping papers in their portfolio so, unless a paper is really awful, they usually offer to transfer.

Thanks! My submitted work is a research-survey (feature) paper and the first journal publishes only original papers. I revised and submitted my work as a feature paper in the second journal. The original reviewers have not seen the revised version, then I think my paper will be submitted to them.  Do you have any positive experience in transferring?


text:
Where to publish articles that are too technical for popular science journals and too conceptual for scholarly
We have hundreds of thousands of scholarly articles containing lab data and mathematical modeling results - published every year.
But what to do with a gray area in scientific research where there is no previous research? A conceptual brainstorming of topics outside of academia mainstream subjects should have some limited way of existence.

It would help if you proofed your sentences a bit. For example, "Not even budgets for lab testing." makes no sense to me where it appears, and your last sentence seems to me missing one or more words (e.g. maybe you intended to begin the last sentence with "What is" or "What are some"; or maybe the question mark was supposed to be a period). That said, this sounds like a question that has been asked here before, but I don't know of such a question at the moment.

30,000 academic journals, and you can't find one that fits your subject? Then there are no readers for your subject. You might as well write it and read it yourself.

You've tagged this question [tag:review-articles], so presumably there are some references you'd cite. Where are those published? Is it all "gray literature"?

4 journals did send my article for peer-review. That would indicate at least some interest from the editors.

If journals are willing to send your work for peer review, it seems you don't need to find some unique venue: the editors are communicating that their venue is fine. But, your work isn't passing peer review.

I’m voting to close this question because your profile here suggests that this is the fourth question you have asked about what seems to be the same paper.

@BryanKrauseisonstrike - This is not just me. Conceptual (to a degree) research papers are notoriously difficult to publish in scholarly journals.

To publish you generally have to convince people your work is worth something. Yeah, if you just have a concept with no experiment or grounded theoretical work (eg: equations, simulations) then there's not much worth. Just because you put effort in doesn't mean it's worth anything. If your paper is going for peer review and then getting rejected, it's not that it appears poor on its face or by category, rather, it seems like it appears poor on deeper examination. You can look for crank or vanity venues, or you can improve your paper. Did you get comments from the reviewers?

@BryanKrauseisonstrike - I would not start with the publishing process without strong encouragement. But almost all the reviews I've received are consistent. Reviewers are very shallow regarding the content itself. And almost all complain that some of the references point to 'non-scholarly articles'.

Okay, so, fix it? It sounds like you need to expand your literature search to include scholarly articles in those areas. When you get peer review comments you should usually expect to make improvements before you submit again, even if that venue won't consider a resubmission.

@BryanKrauseisonstrike - when you write on a subject outside of academic research areas, you don't have scholarly articles to reference.

What are you referencing instead?

Fore example: "Federal Aviation Administration" papers with technical specifications.
Or "IAU Minor Planet Center"

Government publishings seem sufficiently scholarly (maybe less so if they are just simplified content for consumption by the general public), are you sure those are the specific ones that drew the comments?

If you want existence of your work without peer review you can try arxiv. Some of the path breaking work only exist in arXiv.

The role of preprints in Google Scholar search results is murky at best.

@TheMatrixEquation-balance, I guess one definitive question is whether you want to make your work publicly available (which arXiv would do), or have some sort of "validation", which arXiv would only very minimally do. Can you clarify?

@TheMatrixEquation-balance Google Scholar is in itself murky at best, it would be crazy to use it as a metric of anything.

This is a short but very insightful answer.

gray area in scientific research where there is no previous research?

This is no gray area at all.
Either it is a scientific area, or it is not. If it is a new area, ideally, you would trigger discussion among people sharing the same research area, by hosting a workshop or at least a meeting, then you consider if someone would support you in starting a new journal.
Then if there is enough interest, you start publishing your own journal with a publisher, or on your own (see diamond open-source initiatives).
If there is not enough interest, you prepare a monography and you see how it goes in publishing (and reading it).

"Either it is a scientific area, or it is not." -  The black and white approach is rarely intelligent. .

You are interested in publishing something that can be expressed in scientific terms, or not. If you are interested in the scientific terms, the formal structure is rather easy, either you write a review paper of what is at least tangent to [insert your idea] or you do a preliminary lab study/prototype, do some statistical measure/feasibility study on it and publish this.
Either you go the Wright brothers way, believing in your own idea and therefore putting your money and going after funds to make it real, or you go the research way, by writing a proposal to access research funds.

I think that if your paper is novel and based on sound reasoning and research (which usually means that it is supported by previous work and/or your own experiments) you should be able to publish it somewhere. So that's the best option. But, I would argue that "brainstorming" without any evidence is not really research. If that is what you are trying to publish, then you will be limited. arXiv might not event take that sort of thing (check out their moderation policy).
If you are trying to present scholarly work (especially without experimental evidence), you need scholarly sources as a foundation. If you present a hypothesis based on nothing (or worse bad/unreliable sources) then it will not stand up to scrutiny - which is what seems to be happening if you have received the same feedback multiple times.
I would suggest either
A) shoring up your hypothesis with background research or experiments and resubmitting to an appropriate journal
or
B) consider starting a blog that you can use to deposit (and develop) your ideas without the same scholarly expectations of a journal.
A side note, you should be honest with yourself about the viability of your hypothesis. Perhaps your topic is interesting but not well supported (I suspect this is the case if you have made it to reviewers multiple times). Or perhaps your topic is treading close to pseudoscience and your sources are just an easy excuse to reject. Either way, the solution is not necessarily to try to circumvent the normal publishing process. You should really try to properly support your ideas so they can be published.

"I would argue that "brainstorming" without any evidence is not really research." - I don't agree with that. If "incremental research" were the only science, humans would still be living in caves.

@TheMatrixEquation-balance This poster did not say "incremental research is the only research". They said "brainstorming without any evidence is not really research". Innovative stuff is useful, but if you don't have any evidence or support, it's just bullshitting. Might as well ask GenAI to write a paper for you if you don't care about evidence, no one needs you to do it.

Evidence - is for people with an open mind. For someone like Trump, evidence would not even make a dent.

@TheMatrixEquation-balance https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/18493/63475

So because someone might not listen to evidence, you shouldn't need to present any to publish a scientific paper? If you just want to spitball ideas, talk to your friends over a beer.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Revision for the fourth time with major revisions disguised as minor revision
I sent an article to a journal of a reputed publisher. After about six months and 3 revisions, of which 2 were major and 1 was minor, I re-submitted the article. However, after the third revision, I received another request for revision, and this time it was from a third reviewer. The first reviewer has explicitly stated that they are satisfied with the changes made. However, the third reviewer has given almost 4 pages of revisions.
The editor has termed it as 'minor' revision. However, they are not minor at all. The third reviewer wants me to completely re-write every section of the article. The article is conceptual in nature and so their view is completely different than mine.
Naturally, I am exhausted of the back and forth. Are there any suggestions as to what I should do? I am a young author trying to make my way into the world of research and publication.

It seems like 3rd reviewer is crossing the line, from simply reviewing your paper to wanting you to revise the paper towards their interpretation of the concept you are discussing.
Point this out politely and clearly in your confidential reply to the editor, that the reviewer is not finding any error in your paper, but they have different opinions and this is best addressed involving the community at large (i.e. at conference and by allowing the community at large to read your opinion)

If I were you, I'd probably try to make the smallest revisions possible that allow me to state, in the reply to reviewers, that I addressed at least some of the comments of the new reviewer. Sometimes things look big but can be addressed in a small way, for example a reviewer might say "rewrite Section X and in particular change the claim that XX", and you can address that changing said claim only. Whenever they are not specific, there's a good chance getting away with not changing anything, or changing some wordings just cosmetically. I'd also give arguments why I don't do all of them (in case I don't). Maybe I'd add in my comment/letter to the editor a remark about how the process has gone up to now and that demands of previous reviewers have been satisfied, so the opinion of the new reviewer asking for a large rewrite is apparently not shared by the others, and it's not my own opinion either that this would benefit the paper, however I tried to address raised issues as well as I could.
Obviously I can't know to what extent this strategy works here without much effort (for sure it takes a bit), but my impression is that your chances may be best if you continue to "play the game" in the regular way at the surface, still giving the new reviewer as little as one can just about get away with. At the end of the day it will depend on the editor to what extent they rest with the reviewer or with your point of view, and we can't know that. However, if I am editor and I bring in a new reviewer because a previous one dropped out, the new reviewer doesn't necessarily make me happy with a review like this if otherwise the paper looked close to ready. I may well accept in the next round if the author convinces me they have done all that they reasonably could leaving unchanged some bits of the paper that were unfairly attacked. The editor will make the decision, not the new reviewer, and the editor is not obliged to insist on whatever the new reviewer says.

Thanks. I had first sent a polite but strong email about why the third reviewer's comments were unreasonable. Then I read your response and decided to make the least amount of changes and did so. I hope this works out. Thanks.

Your options are the usual ones. You can comply as best you can. You can complain to the editor and hope for the best. You can withdraw the article and submit elsewhere, though that will start the process over again.
A complaint to the editor could be mild, or a refutation of the need for revision, but it is the editor that has all the control here. But your statement that the reviewer has a different conception might hold some sway.

Thanks. What do you think could happen if I refuse to make the changes? Will the editor reject the article or send it to another reviewer or accept the changes I have made so far and accept my article for publication?

It is impossible to say. A lot would depend on how much they trust the opinion of that new reviewer, or why they chose someone new. You have some room to negotiate, perhaps, if you don't just refuse outright. Talk about the reconceptualization issue. If the new reviewer isn't experienced they might be stepping beyond the proper bounds. The editor will have some ideas about that.

@Academiaman As editor I would try to make up my own mind (at least as Associate Editor handling the paper I should have some expertise myself), and this really depends on the quality of arguments of (a) the new reviewer and (b) what you write as a reply to their requests.

Thanks Dr. Henning. I've pointed out the contraction between the suggestions of the previous reviewer that I carried out and the current reviewer. also, some of the suggestions of the third reviewer were completely off topic and they wanted me literally re-write the revised manuscript almost from scratch. I hope the editor takes this into account and considers my previously submitted revised article for publication.

I am an associate editor at a journal. Here is my recommendation for an author who might find themself in your situation.
I recommend that you write a very polite email directly to the lowest-level editor whom you are able to contact [see my note below] and explain your frustrations (again, very politely and without accusing anyone of anything) and then explicitly propose to them which revisions you consider reasonable and which you consider unreasonable. This lets you take control of the situation. Considering that your article has not been rejected at this point, you can reasonably assume that the editors are favourably disposed to your article. So, by proposing what you consider reasonable, many reasonable editors will agree with what you propose.
An important note: Here is what I mean by "lowest-level editor": some journals have an editor hierarchy of Editor-in-Chief | Senior Editor | Associate Editor. (Note: this does NOT include any purely administrative editorial managers who just forward messages back and forth--I am referring to editors who are actually subject matter experts.) If that is the case, then you should address your concerns to the Associate Editor. You should address the lowest level so that you do not offend anyone by "jumping rank". However, in some journals (like mine), the associate editor is anonymous and authors are not able to contact them directly. If so, then you should address the lowest level editor who is visible (Senior Editor) in my example and politely explain that you would have addressed your concern to the Associate Editor except that you have no direct access to them. Again, this is important so that you do not offend anyone by "jumping rank" in raising your concerns.

Thanks for your response Dr. Chitu. I have currently followed the advice by Dr. Hennig. I have made the least possible changes that the third reviewer has suggested. If I get another email insisting on making all the changes suggested by the third reviewer then I will follow your advice on contacting the associate editor. Thank you.

Please remember: the reviewers are giving suggestion to you and to the editor, but the editor has the final word regarding publication.
It seems like 3rd reviewer is crossing the line, from simply reviewing your paper to wanting you to revise the paper towards their interpretation of the concept you are discussing.
In fact, the 3rd reviewer is not finding any error in your paper, but they have different opinions and views.
This debate is best addressed involving the community at large (i.e. at conference and by allowing the community at large to read your opinion), not by removing the debate with "tampering" publications with different views.
Point this out politely and clearly in your confidential reply to the editor.

You are right. Thanks!

You can always argue why the suggested revisions do not agree with the main theme or aim of your paper.   In particular, show how the reviewer's suggestions detract the main message or contributions of your paper.

Thanks. I've done that.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Should I improve the article even the reviewers didn't request to do it?
Currently, I submitted my article to the frontiers series and received comments from the reviewers. After revising the article, I let a native English speaker help me to check it.
She made great revisions for me, especially in improving the writing (eg. grammar/choosing a better word/changing the order of the sentence).
Although it was helpful, the reviewers didn't request me to do it. They just evaluated my writing as 3(the full point is 5).
Should I improve all of them according to her suggestions, even though most of them didn't been pointed out in any questions or errors? or do I just need to improve the parts that have been commented on?
If I improved and changed lots of the word selections, should I mention all of them in the response to the reviewer/editor?

Definitely improve it. But you only need to mention vocabulary choices for key terms, not for the mere phrasing of descriptive or narrative text.

It's your responsibility to make the article as good as possible, not that of the reviewers (just mention the changes made in a separate document).

Do the suggested improvements, and include an acknowledgment for her help.

Yes, you most definitely should make the revisions. It is your article, not the reviewers'. You can make whatever changes you want to. You do not need the reviewers' or editors' permission to make improvements that they did not ask for.
For your review response, you should probably mention something like this: "I had a native English proofreader proofread the article. I believe that the writing in this version should be much improved." There is no need to go into any more detail than that. Most reviewers and editors would be happy to see a comment like that, and almost none would want more details than that.

I agree, though it might be annoying for the reviewers if the article has changed greatly and now they have to review a very different article. They will wish that you had done this before submitting the article. You could tell the editor that the changes are only rewordings and changing the order of words within the sentence - if this is true.

@Oliver882 A proofread article is not a "very different article". Changes are only cosmetic, even if there are changes in almost every sentence. As long as there is no change in the core concepts or arguments, it is up to the reviewers whether they want to reread the entire article. It is absolutely not the reviewers' responsibility to verify the proofreader's work.

OP said "she made great revisions for me," so I think it was more than proofreading

@Oliver882, I guess it is a matter of personal opinion, but I would not consider that "She made great revisions for me, especially in improving the writing (eg. grammar/choosing a better word/changing the order of the sentence)" is worth detailing for reviewers. But I certainly respect if you disagree. I would recommend that OP follow my suggestion for a very high-level general comment, then if reviewers or editors want more detail than that, they will ask for it. Hopefully, that approach could make everyone happy.

@Tripartio Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.  That was very helpful for me. Yes although many changes have been made,  the main technical content hasn't been changed. I think it's better for me to follow those suggestions and improve my article. Wish me good luck, and best wishes to you!

I would definitely submit the improved version, especially if it improves the English writing, only.
I assume the technical content of the paper is unchanged (although better explained). The technical content should only be changed upon reviewers' request, otherwise it's a different paper, and you wasted the original review's time and effort.

I disagree. Although one should avoid resubmitting an entirely new paper, it is often a good idea to make some unrequested modifications to the technical contents, for example if you find a mistake, following feedback from other readers, etc.

I concur that small improvements should be incorporated, when possible. But I would be careful not to modify the overall paper goal or main contribution, that would make a different paper altogether.
It is probably a matter of qualitative judgement.

@Fulvio Corno Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. That was very helpful for me. Yes, I agree with you that it is better to change the main technical content based on the request. And I think it's better for me to follow those suggestions and improve the writing problem. Wish me good luck, and best wishes to you!


text:
Undergraduate university gave out too much scholarship money. I now know years after I graduated. What could happen?
Long story short, I was not a responsible young adult and I didn't know how much I had taken out in student loans for my bachelor's until well after it was over. I recently asked my undergraduate alma mater to send me the balance statements for all semesters. They did and I read through each of them.
Academically, I had a bad first year (2013-2014) in undergrad and ended with a 2.5 GPA. I distinctly remember getting physical mail and was told I lost my $3,000 a semester scholarship that shaved down the cost of attending there. With the help of a life coach, I wrote an appeal and had another chance next academic year to get it back if I could get an overall 3.0 GPA.
However, I was awarded the scholarship in Fall 2014, but not Spring 2015. It was also applied in Fall 2015, despite not yet having an overall GPA above 3.0. That semester, I ended up getting a 3.6 and got my overall GPA past a 3.0 at last. I received the scholarship in Spring 2016 and through graduation in Spring 2017.
Could my undergraduate university potentially find this out if they audit their records and determine I owe them money? If so, I'm a bit concerned about what could happen since that's upwards of $6,000 that I would owe at the very least (for Fall 2014 and 2015) to upwards of $18,000.
To this day, I haven't had any questions or anything about this. As for why I didn't know about this for so long? I left all of my finances in my parent's hands until my Master's program and was negligent.

@AzorAhai-him- That's how much I have in undergraduate loans. I also edited the post to cut the first paragraph. Better?

$6,000 is probably a rounding error for the university, so it being caught in an audit more than six years later doesn't seem too likely. Whether they can ask for money back might depend on the jurisdiction.

@Anyon Idk if this helps but it was a "no name state school" in northern Ohio.

@AzorAhai-him- No, I'm at a different school than my MA, which is also different for my Ph.D

I edited your post to make it easier to follow. You jumped around in the timeline and I found it hard to read. I think this edit is correct, but feel free to change it if not. I am not sure how you reached the $18,000 number, since by my reading, there was only two semester where it was issued in error.

It seems to me the last paragraph could be removed and the first 3 summarized as "My academic performance was less than required for my scholarship, but my university credited me the funds anyways and did not take it away. It's been 6 years since I graduated." The dollar amounts don't matter, the GPAs don't matter, the specific years and semesters don't matter. Your level of responsibility as a young adult or role of your parents in your finances don't matter.

@AzorAhai-him- I reached the $18,000 number since I thought it could've been potentially gone for good after I lost it if that makes sense. Also, your edit is good. Ty for cleaning it up.

@BryanKrause Yeah, you're right. In any case, Azor edited my post and it looks good to me so hopefully that helps now.

My comment is about even after the edit...

@BryanKrause Gotcha. Your first comment had a point but I also want to keep it this way because I want to knock out any questions others will have in advance.

$18k is a lot to you or me, but to the university it's small change. It simply isn't cost-effective for them to bother pursuing you for this (which would involve legal fees, potential bad publicity, and potential damage to alumni relations/fundraising).

What could happen is as you describe it and you get a bill. I doubt, however, that such a thing will happen after, I'm assuming, is several years. They, perhaps, made a mistake, but there doesn't seem to be fraud on your part, which would change the situation.
If it happens, it happens, but there is no action you can likely take to prevent it. You can, however, make sure that your finances are as in order as you can make them so that you won't suffer more than necessary in the worst case. Hope for the best but plan for the worst. My guess, and hope, is that you will be fine.

I think I'm going to defer to the legal online groups about this particular matter.

Apart from the question you ask, there is the question you do not ask, which is: I think I was awarded too much money from the university, what should I do?
Your question is not 100% clear, but it seems to me that now you are sure your former university gave you more money than you deserved. Even if they do not ask you to repay, can you live with this moral burden (I am not judging, I personally would say "who cares, it's an university accounting problem" but your mileage may vary)?
So you have this potential debt of 18'000$ pending on you.
First, the easy thing: 18000$ is a lot of money ... no they are not. If you buy one new car less than your peers during your life, you will have way more than 18000$ in your bank account. Act accordingly.
Second: the "right" thing to do. In my opinion, you should go full transparent with your uni: you already asked the balance statements for all semesters, ask them if they are all paid.
There is a remote chance that your parents took care of them (did you ask them, since they were in charge of your finance?).
If they did not: 18000$ is a small amount in the US, you can get it by working extra-shifts, or even by working with the Uber&co crap, while living on a tight budget for 6 months: not something I would recommend as your regular life-style, but certainly something you can afford as an emergency...

Those balances are all paid off. The scholarship and loans I took out covered all of it. My parents helped cover the one semester I lost the scholarship but that was the one and only time.

can you make a chronological order of your financial issues?
Per each year: do you have any outsanding payment?debt?loan?
Per each year: How much were the tuition fees for each year? How much was your scolarship every year?
If all balances are paid, what is the issue then?


text:
Did my decision to decline a full time lecturer position look bad at all?
I'm in my 5th year in my PhD program in Experimental Psychology.
I declined a position for a full-time lecturer position back in June. I made this decision in large part due to my low ratings as a visiting full-time instructor at a small liberal arts college, as well as major issues I had related to autistic burnout and other behavioral issues that warranted me going on ketamine throughout October.
Notably, I asked this campus to extend my decision date by a week. I didn't email them until an hour or two after the decision deadline to decline the offer. They never replied to that email or anything. However, I did see they reposted the job listing a week or so after I declined it.
Even though my decision was a while ago, it came up recently in discussions I had with other disabled academics (I'm autistic, have ADHD-inattentive, dysgraphia, and 3rd-percentile processing speed). Some people in those discussion said the decision I made was "stupid," among other comments.
Does this mean my name will be "blacklisted" as someone not to hire for other instructor positions in the future? If so, this doesn't really matter since I hated teaching by the end of everything with a passion. This campus was a regional campus of a flagship university, did I burn a bridge with the flagship?
Does rejecting this position look bad? I'm primarily concerned about how this will affect my already negative reputation in my own department. Would people writing me letters of recommendation maybe note I set myself back on opportunities?

Out of curiosity, what does your Plan B currently look like?

@Aruralreader I never had a Plan B after I rejected the position since I'm still working on my dissertation (albeit data's collected so it's the Results and Discussion sections at this point) and have a fellowship where I need to attend four in person events this academic year to stay active. The fellowship awarded me $11k last year, which I haven't touched yet. I need to attend those events to stay active in the system and keep the money.

Is this a position you applied for or one offered to you? "Lecturer" means different things in different countries. Is the UK or elsewhere?

@Buffy This is in the US. I applied to it, got an offer, then rejected it.

@Aruralreader I nearly forgot to mention this as well, but I have multiple disabilities and am in the Federal Workforce Recruitment program as well as my home state's vocational rehabilitation to help me find a job that can accommodate me. Teaching was a bust sadly.

What are your plans after your PhD? What type of work do you envision doing after that?

What sort of advice has your advisor given you?

@Aruralreader I've asked for advice on career searching and he honestly hasn't given me anything as far as that goes. I even asked what he thinks would be a fit for me and he said that it was up for me to decide. My first PhD advisor (before she dropped me) suggested academia was the path for me since my social skills weren't good enough for industry (yes, really). Even though things ended poorly between me and my first advisor, she was the only one who gave a clear goal that she thought was reasonable and was why I tried an adjunct then visiting full time instructor role. It's up in the air.

@Polygnome I always wanted to work as a full time research assistant in some capacity. However, I was told I'd be overqualified for such positions. I do want to get one of the social science research analyst/specialist positions in my state though. ETA: I should note that I successfully passed a competency test for one of these positions, ended up being 1/3 interviewees, and then got rejected sadly.

As a side note, the best strategy is not to apply for positions you know you would reject even if they were offered to you and you had no other offers. (It's true that our knowledge of which positions these are can change over time.)

@GregMartin The time I applied was back in October to Novmeber 2023 though. This was before I got completely jaded by teaching and had an official job offer in hand around June-July 2024. I also reused a lot of the application materials I had for the visiting instructor position as well so my effort at that point was minimal. My fellowship also has service requirements for me to keep the money I was awarded and could've potentially got more had I graduated before the position started (this didn't happen) in this case. I'm glad I did it anyway since they reimbursed my travel expenses.

"However, I did see they reposted the job listing a week or so after I declined it." Well, yeah? I'm not sure why you mention this. Also, what would you like to do with the answer to this question?

@AzorAhai-him- I only bring up that the job got relisted since my competition for it either wasn't high or no one accepted at all. As for what I'd like to do with the answer to the question, I'd say it's completely fine so feel free to close the question or do whatever you all need to do when a satisfactory answer is given.

@zzmondo1 No, we don’t close questions when they get answers. What I mean is, there’s not much you can do with the answer to this question, so why are you asking? To guide answers.

@AzorAhai-him- I'm asking because I've had mixed responses to my decision to decline the position. Some have even gone as far as to say I've burned a bigger bridge than I thought because the university I rejected is a regional campus of a flagship university in that state. I'm not good with sussing out information in these situations, hence why I deferred to this forum.

You said you weren't worried about burning a bridge though, because you are no longer interested in teaching?

I reflowed your question a little based on your comments. You kind of jumped back and forth between what happened and why you're asking. Please do edit if I made a mistake.

A lot of people decline a lot of positions for a lot of reasons. I don't know of such things as "blacklists" in the US, though people in a given field know one another to some extent and may talk. But, declining in order to have time to finish your research is valid.
I seriously doubt that declining the offer will add to your difficulties.
In any case, it is what it is, and you will need to address the issue if and when it arises, perhaps in a question during an interview. But even that seems doubtful to me.
Good luck finding the right fit.

It is worth clarifying that I declined because I would have some in person duties with all online courses. Given my major mental health issues (and physical, albeit to a lesser extent), I wanted to be around my support system again and not have to worry about living while I was at it too. I'm living with my parents right now.


text:
I want to be a research technician. What consequences could dropping my PhD impose given that I only need a Master's at most to be a technician?
I'm a 5th year PhD student in the US studying Experimental Psychology with an accepted Master's from a different Experimental Psychology program. I've had a fairly rough grad school experience overall, which my older posts can elaborate on. I'm currently living with my parents 4.5 hours away from where I'm doing my PhD because I'm done with dissertation data collection and my only in person commitments are for my fellowship and dissertation defense (whenever that happens).
After some discussions with others and knowing my limitations (e.g., poor abstract reasoning, poor verbal fluency), I've decided that I've wanted to be a social science research technician. I'm even open to becoming a social science research analyst as well since I recently interviewed for that position (but was rejected sadly) and was one of three who passed a competency test for that position.
Given that such a position wouldn't require a PhD, I'm strongly considering dropping from this program altogether now given the myriad of mental health, physical health, advising (my first PhD advisor dropped me), and financial issues this program's had all along. I've wanted my awful program experience to end by leaving it either after I got a job offer in hand or graduating from it.
Now that I've committed to a research technician or analyst position, I'm thinking that dropping is the best move despite working on my Results and Discussion sections. A lot of folks advise not dropping from a PhD because it burns connections, but what are the other potential consequences of leaving a PhD program for a technician position (should I get one soon working with my home state's vocational rehabilitation)? I'd like to know.

You should tread very carefully here.  In particular, do the people you are working with from vocational rehabilitation have more than a token amount of experience working with people seeking careers requiring higher education?  In many cases, degree requirements for jobs are there not because the job requires information or knowledge of specific tasks you were taught in a degree program but because the job requires abstract reasoning abilities that are correlated with earning degrees.  If vocational rehabilitation doesn't understand this they may be misleading you about your chances.

@AlexanderWoo I can't speak for vocational rehabilitation as a whole, but the person helping me with job searches has a daughter who has a PhD and did two post docs before she gained full employment at one of the major hospitals in the country. When I brought up the importance of publications and why me not having any was going to be an uphill battle for jobs, she understood that. As for my abstract reasoning deficits, I am going to bring that up to her next meeting and bring up technician positions in the process. I do recall someone on this forum hired a PhD as a technician at one point.

"my only in person commitments are for my fellowship and dissertation defense" This sounds like you are almost done. I understand quitting half way, but you are basically standing on the finish already. At least half of your reasons for quitting, namely the advisor and financial problems, will hardly matter then. Is this me reading things wrong? How much actual time would it take to finish?

@MisterMiyagi Yes, I am almost done in theory. However, the goalpost moves constantly. My graduation date just got extended to May 2025 (I'm aiming to defend sometime in the new year anyway). So, you're reading things correctly. The way I see it though, "close to the end" is relative if I do what my advisor asks and he keeps insisting I add or do more to my dissertation. So, I would have the next 6 months at most with a date to get everything to the graduate school 8 months from now as well. It's worth noting that I was going to graduate in December, but I had to extend for the former reasons

Perhaps I am misreading, but it seems, from your comments and responses, that you have already made your decision.

What is the difference between a research "analyst" and "technician"? These are just job titles.

@ambiguditi The decision I've made in my mind is to leave, but I'm open to convincing that I shouldn't do so.

@AzorAhai-him- I'm not sure if I can fit everything within the character limit of this comment. I also don't want to clog up with too many additional comments but I'll try. A research analyst position will give me sets of data. I'm supposed to interpret the data, if it meets expectations, and target areas that could be improved too. A technician's job duties vary, but they're "boots on the ground" folks who so the grunt work for a lab. They might help prepare a manuscript or two as well. Passing that competency test for the analyst position was a confidence booster tilting me towards it so far

@zzmondo1 You are almost certainly overqualified for a "tech" position as someone this close to defending. Can you clarify if you mean a position in a university lab somewhere, or a think thank, or what?

@AzorAhai-him- *do the grunt work (mb for the typo). I'm thinking that a tech position could be in a university lab or one of the major research hopsitals near me. As for the analyst positions, I interviewed for one in my home state months ago but sadly didn't get the position. When they described a day to day for the analyst position though, it sounded up my alley. Even if I'm normally overqualified, I'm confident that I could work with vocational rehabilitation in my state to try and get around that given I can leverage my disabilities and explain that doesn't overqualify me for the job.

@zzmondo1 Is that analyst position in a university lab, or hospital or what?

@AzorAhai-him- It would've been with my home state department so neither setting in this case. I'd look at their data, review state relief programs, and go from there.

@zzmondo1 Did you mean to say "department of health" or something?

@AzorAhai-him- I couldn't fit the department name in, but it was a department that oversaw programs that targeted children and K-12 education systems.

The two main consequences are likely to be:

You disqualify yourself from jobs that require a PhD. The job you're looking at doesn't require a PhD right now, but that might change in the future.
You get questions about why you didn't complete your PhD during job interviews, especially since five years is a long time to spend without getting a degree out of it.

Beyond that, in the same way your high school grades matter less once you've earned an undergraduate degree, your non-completed PhD starts mattering less once you've held a real job.
That said, I see several major warning signs in your question right now:

You've said you want to be a social science research analyst apparently without having been a social science research analyst before. Are you sure you want to be a social science research analyst? How confident are you that you will enjoy it? If it turns out not to be as fulfilling as you thought, then having the PhD gives you significantly more flexibility.
Do you know if social science research analysts require only a masters degree, industry-wide? Or is it unique only to this company? Are there different grades of social science research analysts, where having a PhD qualifies you to more advanced grade(s)?
You don't appear to have a job offer. Quitting your PhD before having a formal offer is very risky, since you might not find a job as a social science research analyst before you run out of $.

Not knowing your circumstances in detail, I'd lean towards completing the PhD, because it sounds like you're almost finished. You could also ask your parents, since they're likely to know the job search process well.

I'll reply to each point in order: 1.) I'm fairly sure I want to be a social science research analyst since it seems like a solid fit overall. 2.) Many of them require a Master's degree at minimum, but years of experience applying certain skills matters more (which I also have

). 3.) I don't have a job offer. Unfortunately, I ran out of funding last academic year so I've been living on savings from the full time visiting instructor position I did last year and fellowship money. If I drop out, I'll must return the fellowship money even though I fulfilled my service since graduating is required. I'm tired of being in overdrive all the time every single time I work. Regarding my parents, I'm first generation (even at the undergrad level) so my parents aren't exactly going to be much help when it comes to the job market right now.

@zzmondo1 I'm fairly sure I want to be a social science research analyst since it seems like a solid fit overall Without having worked as a social science research analyst before, this statement can be off the mark. Beware. As for talking to your parents: I'm not suggesting you ask them to help you find a job. I'm suggesting you ask them about the job search process and what they think about you quitting the PhD.

I haven't worked such a position. However, when I heard what a day to day was like during my interview for one, it seemed up my alley. As for quitting the PhD... my parent said they're not a fan of me doing that at all. They understand me searching for jobs, but even they've said that they want me to slow down and that they believe that me not getting the jobs I applied to this semester was a blessing in disguise because I'd have more time to focus on my dissertation and fellowship commitments. @Allure

*parents (typo)

If you can finish your dissertation without permanent damage (burn out, medical condition, losing spouse, fighting with parents), try to do so!
There are so many pros for having the thing finished. My personal number one: The joy of knowing it has been a success, despite all the problem, the bad odds, and the long hardship.

I'm already suffering from autistic burnout (think of regular burnout but 100x times worse) and got PTSD from my program so there's already been damage done for sure.

If you can manage to finish without much additional damage, make the damage count for something!

The problem is that the damage has already been done though. I'm legitimately not working on anything related to my PhD at all.

If you don't want or can return to working on your PhD with the goal to finish it, there is no question to answer here. Then it is over, you have to admit it to yourself, and talk to your advisor.

Yeah, I'm going to talk to him this coming Wednesday officially.


text:
Asking an expert in your field that you have never met to review your manuscript
I would like to submit my manuscript to a journal. Before I do, I would like to reach out to a professor at another university to see if he would be willing to review my manuscript since he is an expert in the field.
Is this appropriate or common practice?

I've tried this during my younger days.   The professor said yes, and in return he asked to be a co-author for doing very little.

@ProfSantaClaus Just say “Sure! Would being the last author be okay with you?” ;)

What you intend to do could be appropriate if you are an independent researcher. And it should be presented as a form of discussion rather than a pre-review of a manuscript to be submitted. I think it happened more often in the past and for bigger ideas, too. Whatever it might follow can span from a nice discussion to coauthoring and even to your idea be stollen. It would be better to arrange this with those you already know. Often you can read "we thank X.Yyyyy for useful discussions". However, in doing what you propose, you won't offend the targeted reviewer, but likely people around, if any

Don't you have an advisor? A supervisor of some sort?

@Prof.SantaClaus, did the request to be co-author turn out well or badly for you?

@nick012000 Except in the fields where that's the second most important author

You mention in one of your comments that you do have an advisor, but they lack some relevant expertise for this problem. You may want to add that information to the question. If nothing else, it suggests that you aren't a crank. A lot of the people who want to send unsolicited manuscripts to people they've never met are cranks, and I suspect that several people here might wonder if you're one of them based on this question. Explaining why you aren't asking your advisor will allay those concerns, so people may be more willing to take the time to write an answer.

@nick012000 well, given that he asked to be the co-author knowing that it is un-ethical, the answer would be 'okay'! :D

@Buffy I never added him as the co-author.  I just thanked him in the Acknowledgment section.  That's the last time I approach anyone external for feedback.

Ask your advisor at your own university, but the answer is 99.9% no. It's your advisor's job to look at your paper before you submit.
In some cases it's appropriate to share with outsiders when they aren't really outsiders but rather collaborators or colleagues known to you or your advisor. In other rare cases you might reach out to someone whose work is very similar or affected by yours, but again, this would be at your advisor's direction.

edits:
OP clarified in a comment that their advisor has reviewed their paper and found it suitable, but the paper is outside the advisor's best expertise. In this context, I do think it is worth getting an outside opinion if the advisor agrees, but I still would not suggest cold-contacting anyone.
Instead, I would recommend asking the advisor if someone in their network might have more expertise in the specific area, even if they aren't the very top person in the field. The point is to get an informed opinion from someone friendly but willing to be honest.
Another option is to do some networking at conferences, etc. In that way, you turn people you've never met into people you've met and it may become more appropriate to ask (and certainly more likely to get a positive response).

99% is an underestimate IMO.

@ZeroTheHero Closer now?

Closer to my experience at least.  :D

OP didn't say (s)he has an advisor - what would you suggest if they don't have one?

If OP doesn't have an advisor, they're even less likely to get a review. A person outside academia requesting a paper review from a stranger will be interpreted as "crank" (whether fairly or not), and there are no upsides to dealing with a crank.

@Allure Then I'd suggest they get an advisor; ditto to everything iayork says.

@BryanKrause suggest editing that into answer.

The first sentence of the edits suggests a conflict between "the advisor found it suitable" and "the paper was (desk) rejected" that doesn't exist.  Suitable papers get rejected all the time.

@JeffE Agreed; I removed the mention of the rejection since it's of minor importance. I mostly wanted to add the edits because when I first wrote my answer I was under the assumption that it was possible the paper had not been reviewed by any advisor yet.

I am surprised at all the "no" answers/comments here.  This may depend on your field, but in my area (pure mathematics), it is very common to send drafts of papers to experts for feedback/comments regardless of whether or not you know them.  (I presume this is what you mean by review, rather than anything more formal.)  Now posting papers to the arXiv fills this role of soliciting feedback to some extent, but it is still common to send your paper (often with a link, but sometimes a pdf) to individual people for comments.
That said, often you will not get feedback, but in my experience your chances are much better than 0%.  This may be because the other researcher is too busy to look at your paper, or because they don't have any noteworthy feedback.  One thing to increase your chance of feedback is to ask a specific question about a point in your paper you think that person may have insight on.
Also, if you do not know the professor, you can preface your email with a sentence introducing yourself (e.g., I am a PhD student of Professor X at StackExchange University), which may increase your chances of getting a reply, particularly if that professor is close to Professor X.  If you do have an advisor/mentor, you can also ask them advice for who would be good experts to ask for feedback.

Thank you so much for the comments. I have an advisor, but the paper I wrote is not their specialization. I just received a desk rejection for one publication, and want to have someone provide feedback before submitting to another journal, but the advice on whether this is appropriate is mixed. Some folks will tell me that it is perfectly fine to reach out to other academic experts. Others emphatically disagree.

@user3424836 Maybe things are different in your field.  What is your area?

Yes - that could be it. I am in public policy researcher, so it is highly multi-disciplinary

@user3424836 Your paper may not be in your advisor's specialty, but they can still help you with this. They can help you know if you should send it out to someone else, and who you should send it to, even if it isn't their specialty. They should also review your papers before you submit them even if it isn't in their specialty, that's their job as an advisor.

Yes, thank you! My advisor looked at the article before I submitted the first time and thought it was fine. However, because it isn't their specialization, I am wondering if it would make sense to have someone else take a look before I submit to another (lower tier) journal

Academics are very busy people, so it is highly unlikely that this professor will agree to a review outside of the journal process.  Ordinarily, a preliminary review would be done by your supervisor or a colleague that does not mind taking the time to help you, and after that you would submit to the formal review process for the journal you submit to.  Bear in mind that you can often suggest reviewers to the journal during the submission process (either in the online form, or just in the body of your letter to the editor), so if you think this professor would be a good reviewer, that may be an avenue to get a review from him.

Plus one for mentioning the possibility of suggesting a referee. General note: a good strategy seems to not suggest too many

Making a polite and humble request, with proper introduction of yourself and giving the  possibility to say a gentle "no", is by all means appropriate. I have a been in this situation, and my experience says, 99.9 % of the time its a no reply and occasionally you may get a "interesting but not close enough to my area", or "Sorry I am occupied with too many other things now". You can mail it anyway, nothing wrong. (Also add to arxiv.org and share a link to professors rather than sending a pdf).
My suggestion is, review it yourself many times, put yourself in the place of a reviewer and make judgements and estimate short falls. Iteratively improve presentation and polish it many times. (this could include adding redundancy to give more clarity on central ideas or contributions, including references(that you were not aware of when you first wrote the manuscript) to earlier works and giving comparaitve statements (these are the ones reviewers request almost all the time), extending your work, or writing about its applications that you come across while reviewing, and so on...).
When you have done these things repeatedly over a few spells, start looking at journal to which your paper matches the best (in terms of scope and subject matter and nothing else) and submit. You will get a thorough an professional feedback. Use it to improve and submit it to else where and repeat till its published. Meanwhile you can add it to arxiv.org to get visibility.
PS : Do not submit to very high on prestige journals. Also do not take turn around time into consideration while selecting journals. Select solely based on scope and subject matter.

Is this appropriate or common practice?

Appropriate, yes; common - I don't know, but I've done it. And with a monograph even, not just a journal paper...
I'd make it at least a two-phase process, i.e. don't start out by making the full request and linking to the paper, but rather make it a more fuzzy request; also, try to make it seem like it should be interesting for him as well, e.g. by relating your work to his.
Of course - it is always better if you can approach him in person at a conference, or if you have a common acquaintance you could ask for advice on this.
PS - It being appropriate does not mean that he will say yes :-(

I'm also surprised at the feedback.  I think what the original poster is getting at here, is that having several "well-known experts in the same field" perform a review of the paper is a requirement for submission to the publication.  This is something my wife has run up against on papers she has submitted, and while I don't know about "Academics", researchers and well known scientists are familiar with this process.  Generally, they will ask you to perform the same service for them in the future on their potential submissions to the same or other journals.
That's not to say that they "must" agree, or perform the review when you ask, but you should definitely come up with a variety of potential reviewers, and use the law of averages to your advantage.  The earlier advice of having your supervisor or the principal investigator solicit reviews on your behalf is also good advice.  This will become less of an issue as you become established and recognized in the field, but initially it's a challenge.  Make sure to give a good overview of your research, the people involved, and the institution(s) sponsoring the research, so that whomever you contact understands this is not some fly-by-night effort for a complete stranger to get recognition they don't deserve...After all, in essence, you're asking a complete stranger to vouch for your work using their good name and credentials.
Peer reviews are important, but as a new entrant into a field, it can be very challenging to get the ball rolling.

Is it possible that you're confusing the process that normally follows submission to a journal (you say "This is something my wife has run up against on papers she has submitted") as opposed to before submission to a journal? If it is pre-submission, could you mention the field?

Yes, "Peer reviews are important", and most academics routinely perform them. But they occur after submission, and are arranged by the journal, not the author (although really, journals might ask for suggested reviewer names). So this is a very different process than what the OP is asking about (outside review before submission), which would be very unusual in most fields.

@iayork She's a Computer Scientist writing modelling and data handling software for Environmental Sciences.  She has been working on submitting a paper to an Environmental Sciences journal, I believe, although I don't know the name of the journal.  Part of the submission process is to include the review from respected researchers in the same field, including their contact information.  She has only a few papers thus far, but has had this trouble on at least one other submission.


text:
Can a degree be revoked for minor misconduct?
I was wondering how possible it would be that, after graduating, the university would investigate a minor misconduct during college. By minor I mean, if found guilty the worst punishment would be / have been a semester suspension.
If you had already graduated, what are the possibilities that the punishment would include revoking your degree?


text:
How often should I meet my direct mentor in bachelor's thesis?
I am doing my bachelor's (undergraduate) thesis in a research lab. My supervisor, who is head of the lab, has assigned a junior professor and his PhD student as my direct point of contact. With both of them, I have a weekly meeting where I present the work that I have done.
I get severe doubts while reading the literature, etc. Should I approach my PhD point of contact for this? How often should I approach the head of the lab?
The PhD student seems willing to help. But, as a new researcher, am I supposed to ask him the conceptual doubts I am getting? The way you ask professors after a lecture? The topic of my research is completely new to me (I haven't been taught it formally before).

Possible duplicate of Problem with undergraduate research supervisor, how to proceed?

Welcome Awani. Have a look at another thread as another student has had a similar experience and there has been extensive discussion there.

Thanks Poidah for your comment, but my case is a bit different where the supervisor is willing to help.

No problems Awani. Consider trying out the various grammar checkers out there. I find it has helped my writing and give really useful feedback on punctuation, phrases, etc. Some can be installed into web browsers or your word processor too.

I met my B.Sc. supervisor twice. Once to discuss the topic and the second time for the thesis defense. :-) But this was because I had an industry supervisor with whom I discussed my work once every two or three weeks, just to give another number/example.

My undergraduate project meant I had a meeting once a week for 10 minutes... Some meetings left me with 3 weeks work... So it depends but for an undergraduate, once a week is ample.
Some PhD students have daily conversations, others less often, but that depends on the topic, field and the people involved.

For a bachelor's, I would say a weekly meeting is above average (lucky you!).
If the PhD student is happy to help, then don't feel guilty about approaching them.
If you're meeting them on a weekly basis already, then I wouldn't want to interrupt many more times outside of that meeting. Try to save up a list of questions to be answered all in one go rather than giving constant interruptions to the PhD candidate. I've been in this position, and whilst I was always happy to help, I was always MORE happy to help if I could see that the student had really tried to work out the answer to their questions. If you go to them showing no effort on your part then their goodwill may run out quickly.

Once a week is fantastic and it is ok to sit with your doubts and concerns. Expectations are not high when it comes to undergrad research and your confusion is universal as people move away from a structured coursework environment into the more chaotic research arena. Learning to manage your doubts and frustration is an important skill as well.
Another way to break the long one week stretch is to email the PhD student and junior professor a couple of days before your meeting. Emails are usually well-received and allows both of them time to think about the issues before meeting you. Emails also force you to articulate and write out your confusion which is a great way to learn and practice writing. Just make sure you clarify that do not expect a reply and that you are just keen to maximize your weekly meetings. You may have already solved or come up with solutions by the meeting, that is great and you can present your new understanding but at least by emailing beforehand you have made given them a sense of your progress and your problem solving skills.


text:
Should I submit a rejected paper as it is in some other place so that publication decision comes quickly?
I am a Phd student (thesis submitted in January 2018, not defended yet) in applied mathematics. My first paper was published in February 2018 in a tier 1 applied math journal, two other papers were recently rejected from tier 1 applied math journals.
I discussed the rejected papers with my advisor, we decided that we will work on the comments of the reviewers and associate editors and then submit to some other tier 1 journals. Now that will take at leat 5-6 months and then these two paper may get accepted in 2020 in the best case, or in the worst case it could be in 2021 (generally, top tier journals take a long time).
Now, my advisor is saying that you should publish continually (there should not be gap between publications) and suggested me to submit the rejected paper as it is, but if these two rejected papers are again rejected I will be in trouble. If a paper gets rejected twice then it may be hard to get that paper accepted in future.
What should I do in this situation ? Any help/suggestions will be useful. Thanks in advance.

The comments are so bad that you need at least half a year to fix it, and still you want to submit it without doing anything about it?

Is your reviewer up for review and trying to push up the number of papers produced? If so, then the decision to post may not be in your favor...

I'm surprised by your expected timeline.  To take an example, many of the top journals in applied math are SIAM journals.  They have a policy of requesting referee reports within two months, and realistically a round of review very rarely takes longer than 6 months.  So unless your papers still require multiple rounds of major revisions, they ought to be accepted in 2019, and certainly long before 2021.

How come your advisor agreed with you to "work on the comments of the reviewers and associate editors", and then later said the contradictory thing of "you should publish continually"?

I don't think it would be useful for you to do this very often. It might not be great for your reputation if you "shop around" too much for publication. The answers available here at this moment give good advice.

One of the dangers of such a behaviour is that you stumble upon same reviewers. "I have seen this paper before and my comments were not incorporated" is something you do not want to see.

Could you incorporate SOME of the reviewer comments? I think you should distinguish between comments that are and are not within the scope of the present article. Basically skip any comments that would take more than a week.

Ignoring reviewers' comments and simply resubmitting to a different journal sounds like a bad idea to me, for a number of reasons,

While some institutions are obsessed by quantity of publications, quality is at least as important for building a reputation (not to mention more altruistically for actually improving the state of knowledge in the field). If the reviewers have advised you on how to improve it, and if they are not obviously talking rubbish, it seems unwise to discard this advice without a very good reason.
It's entirely possible that the new journal may send it to one or more of the same reviewers as the old one did. There are existing questions on this site from reviewers who this has happened to, and the results are unlikely to be good for you if you have not changed anything. The reviewers are unlikely to recommend acceptance, and the editor may be annoyed if advised of what has happened.
Even if it does get published without revisions in the new journal, the previous reviewers are likely to read it, and it won't do your reputation any good with them.

When you get reviewer comments, there are often several kinds:
There are the ones where you react: "That suggestion really improves the paper; why didn't I do that in the first place?"
There are the ones where you react: "Yes, that would be an improvement to the paper, but it requires several months more research, and I don't know whether it's worth it. I'm tired of this particular research, and want to move on to something else."
There are the ones where you react: "Why on earth does he want me to do that?"
And then there are all sorts of suggestions that lie in between these extremes.
For the first kind of comments, make the changes (even if it takes you a few weeks).
For the second kind, you should try to decide whether it's worth it. Does it improve the paper enough to be worth the investment of time?
For the third kind, try to figure out why the reviewer wanted you to make the changes, and if you can't, ignore them. If the paper had been accepted, you'd have to explain why you didn't make them in your resubmission letter, but if you're resubmitting it somewhere else, there's no reason to do anything about these.

You certainly can submit the papers without revision to some other journal(s), but you should check some things first.
In what way were the papers rejected? Were they rejected as, "we will not publish this paper, please go away," or was it returned with reviewer comments requiring revision before resubmitting? The difference is that you may need to formally withdraw the paper before submitting to another journal otherwise you will have submitted the same paper simultaneously to different journals, which is generally not permitted and requires a statement that you have not also submitted the paper for consideration elsewhere.
What were the reviewer comments? You need to consider the feedback or you run the [high] risk of having the paper rejected again, and this will also take time to go through the publication process. A period of 5-6 months to write revisions is a long time, perhaps it is worth considering scrapping the paper and writing a new paper from the beginning.
Your advisor should be helping you, but as you have submitted your thesis you aren't really a PhD student any longer and may be looking for postgraduate positions or jobs where you apply your skills and knowledge, which may require you to be writing documents and papers as the lead, without the benefit of an advisor, and you will need to make these kinds of decisions on your own.


text:
How to write papers efficiently when English isn't my first language?
I am a PhD student from China. I can read papers relatively fast and get the main point. The problem is that I cannot write efficiently. I don't know how to express myself or I forget the appropriate phrases when writing. Can any other researcher help me solve this problem?

You might also consider asking related questions at http://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/

Hire a language editor until you master the language.

have you talked to your adviser? What is expected of you, to write whole paper alone or that your PI is an active co-author? When do you need to produce paper (and what size), is it 100 pages in 3 months or 5 pages in 1 year?

Just to give you some relieve: for most researcher, including me, it is not the primary language and there is always a bit of struggle with formulation, it's an endless learning process. At least the way you wrote this question gives me the impression that your level of english is "sufficient" and within a normal level. So be confident about it :)

A question isn't the same as a paper of course, but judging by how well-written this question is, your English writing might be better than you think.

@JohnColeman The original version wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either.

The art of academic writing is essentially the practice of re-writing the same story many times, until the result is "good enough". It takes a lot of persistence and a lot of time to prepare a single paper for publication.
If English is not your first language and  you struggle with the correct phrasing, consider using an academic phrasebank  to help you. I can also recommend a brief summary of academic grammar. Finally, use English-English dictionaries as much as possible, e.g. the free dictionary, and refrain from using English-YourMotherTongue dictionaries if you can.

As a professional who isn't in academia anymore, but does write for academia a fair bit, this is a marvellous resource for English speakers too.

thanks, Dr. Dmitry Savostyanov,  you really do me a great favor. The first 2 websites you suggested contain so many useful stuffs. It is worthy to spend time and energy to train myself how to use these two websites. And it is indeed helpful. The free dictionary is helpful, too. Thanks a lot!

A concrete thing to do when writing is to first express yourself in any way you can, no matter how clumsy or awkward it feels, to get something on paper. After you have written a longer text, you can take the time to fix mistakes, find better phrases, reduce unnecessary passive voice and cut up overtly long sentences, or whatever are good and useful practices for you.
If you have collaborators, do this together with them, at least a page or so worth, and discuss the changes you make. This can help you identify things to work on. Even non-native collaborators are helpful, especially if they have a different native language than you do; they tend to notice and be blind to different issues.
A good habit is that when you are checking your writing and you feel uncertainty about an issue, find out how the grammar works or how the word is spelled. You might want to use the stack exchange sites https://ell.stackexchange.com/ and https://english.stackexchange.com/ , where appropriate.
For strategies and tools for improving your English, you might also ask at http://languagelearning.stackexchange.com/ .

Interestingly, this is good advice for native speakers too. The only difference between a native and non-native speaker would be how much extra time it takes to move from first to final draft.

In other words: first get the science right, and only then get the English right.

I would recommend to polish you English in general a little bit - language exchanges or language tandems with native speakers can help you a lot here. Maybe there are native speakers who would like to learn Chinese in your city? Check if you find platforms for such exchanges in social media or websites like meetup. I found this tremendously helpful for myself.
In a second step I would then go ahead an extract specific phrasing from existing research papers of your field. You will see that researchers use specific phrases in specific situations/sections of a paper. But in order to really do this and use the phrases appropriately I think it might be beneficial to work on your general English fluency a little bit.

It's very common for students to primarily hang out with others who speak their language.  In the short run, it's more comfortable, but in the long run I think it's a mistake.  Make friends and hang out with native speakers of your host country, nothing else is going to provide you with that all-important exposure to when phrasing sounds right (or wrong).

A good addition to this answer might be: the OP might want to dedicate some time to interact with researchers in his/her field discussing research ideas. This need not be the entire time he/she spends practicing English, but I imagine this would help (disclosure: I'm a native English speaker, so caveat lector, i.e. reader beware)

Writing is a complex topic that cannot be explained fully in a short StackExchange post.  Just like it took you years to learn your own discipline, it takes years to learn how to write well. Academic writing is also its own specialized skill.
We could recommend you some books and rules of thumb. But the more logical thing to do would be to go to your university's writing center and ask them for help. You could also ask your advisor or colleagues who are good at writing. They would recommend the same books we would, but you would get much more detailed advice.

I can easily imagine a university (outside UK and EU) with no "writing center", whatever it means. I can also easily imagine an advisor (outside UK and EU) totally incapable of publishing and otherwise communicating in English.

Oh, I definitely meant "US and EU" not "UK and EU". Sorry!

@DmitrySavostyanov thinking ahead...

@DmitrySavostyanov Excellent comment, for the question "What to watch out for when choosing a university/advisor?"

And if your advisor is totally incapable of publishing in English, but this is an important skill for you, I've got some bad news...

Native English speaker here. I used to work in research with researchers whose English was not a first language.
I would suggest focusing on the structure of your writing like Ethan mentioned (I have found Barbara Minto's book The Pyramid Principle quite useful) and if possible get a native speaker to review your English (e.g. you can pay for technical editors or work with English-speaking collaborators).
As someone who has reviewed many writers I have found well structured work much easier to edit than poorly structured writing. This is irrespective if the writer is a native speaker or not (assuming a passable level of English, which I'd say you have).
You may also be suffering writers block, I think processing ideas and expressing ideas (and translating ideas into another language) are seperate exercises best tackled at different stages. When I get writer's block I don't think about how to best express an idea, I simply write "I will write about X now, which proves..."  You may write key words in your native language or any ugly, dirty writing trick that helps you stay in the flow of getting your ideas on the page. Then once your ideas are on paper, you can focus on expressing things in readable English.
Please be aware that English is just a pain in the butt, I have worked with many clever people who always get stuck on "an/a" and "he/she/they" and stuff like this. I would in the final stage of writing review these kinds of words.

Because you are comfortable reading newspapers and extracting what is called the 'controlling idea' from your reading, here is a method for using the controlling idea method to learn how to produce outlines of already written documents. Once you master this re-producing process you will be better prepared to develop outlines for your own writing.
Method-
select a scientific article which you understand well. Beginning with the first paragraph, select what you think to be the controlling idea of that paragraph. The controlling idea is the primary idea that the author is trying to make in that paragraph.
Then, select in order of importance in supporting the controlling idea, the other ideas [sentences] in the text of the document. When your finished your outline should look like this:
Controlling idea-
-supporting idea 1
-supporting idea 2
-supporting idea 3
concluding idea
Follow this model for each paragraph in the paper. Repeat this process until you can perform the process easily. Then begin to use the same process to prepare to write your own papers.
Best of Luck! Charles M. Saunders

Every one of the answers here has good ideas that may work for you. Here is another.
My wife used to coach academic writers. She suggested that one of her clients  write his first few drafts in his native language (Japanese), That way he could make sure his ideas were well organized without having to worry about finding just the right foreign words, When he felt well enough organized he would translate his own work into English and polish it with the help of friends and fellow professionals, including those at the writing center at his university.

Writing an academic paper is a complex task. You are dealing with multiple distinct cognitive demands. If you are struggling, you may benefit from breaking down the process into its component parts:
1) Research and learn the information
2) Convey the information in a sequence of words
3) Ensure that the words are clear to the reader
Many second language learners benefit from doing the first two tasks in their native language. As they perform research, they take notes in their native language or some combination of their native language and English. Then they write out at least the outline, but often the whole paper, in their native language. At that point many find it none too difficult to translate their work into English. Afterwards, of course, they will proofread it and fix any problematic expressions using the resources they have in-person or online.


text:
Will my advisor regret taking me if I start slacking off?
I just found an advisor, and the semester after that, I took a much harder courseload because I'm behind on my course requirements.  As a result I haven't gotten a lot of research done.  Is my advisor going to regret taking me or think I've somehow deceived him?

You're not slacking off exactly if you take a harder course load. Tell him what you told this forum: "Just meant to let you know that I'm taking a lot of required classes this semester. It'll be harder temporarily to do research while this lasts." He should understand, and appreciate being kept in the loop.

I'm only taking one class, so he's probably like "what's the big deal?"  But that class is a lot harder than the one class I took last term.

And the professor probably knows that about that class...

If I were your professor, I would say to you "have some fun and relax!"

Maybe.  It sounds like you want reassurance but without knowing you or your advisor, we have no way of knowing how he will react.  You'll just have to... talk to him, as if he were human (as JeffE likes to put it).

I suggest you change the question. You're not slacking off. I recommend: Will my advisor understand my decrease in productivity while taking a difficult course?

I just feel bad because I spent all of last semester trying to impress him (so he would take me on), and he probably thought I was actually good, but now I'm not working that hard anymore.  So it's like I lied to him when I was selling myself.

It depends: now that you've "started" slacking off, do you intend to keep slacking off?

Communication is critical here. If your advisor knows what you are doing and why you are doing it, there is a much better chance that he or she will be patient with a low rate of progress.
You can communicate in a number of ways. A sit-down talk is obviously the most straightforward, but you can back up the message by putting in face time time in the office or lab, attending all lab meetings and relevant seminars and departmental events, and so forth. You can even ask for advice on how to balance classroom and research time. Sometimes an A- and research progress is better for your education than an A+ to the exclusion of everything else. (See also the threads about the relevance of your PhD grades going forward).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What is the best way to see if students understood?
I am teaching classes of a size of 20-25 persons.
During a class, what is the best way to get feedback from students? Concretely, I would want to get the following questions answered every ~15-20 minutes:

Did the students understand what I was explaining?
Are there any questions related to what was just discussed?

Ideally, I would also like to encourage weaker students to ask questions---without them being afraid of asking those questions.
Do you have any advise on how to best phrase such questions from my side?

What field is this? What level?

This is like the 10 million dollar question for instructors, isn't it?

"Did the students understand what I was explaining?" Look at their faces! :-p

@MassimoOrtolano, that only goes so far. Often they can think they understand, but don't. It gives a clue, of course, but nothing more.

This is for MSc Computer Science students, for what it's worth. I would assume that the problem is get similar for other courses of studies

The cseducators site here is a better venue for questions like this. https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/, You will find some answers by searching there.

I'll save you the time. In a typical MS program, the weakest students didn't understand, because they cheated their way through school thus far and lack the necessary background to be where they are sitting. But to really assess where they are, one way I have found is to make very basic questions where they state each step of what they do and why they do it, such that there's nowhere to hide. They will probably crash and burn, and you get to decide how far back in remedial material you want to go.

I'm going to suggest that you are probably over-using lecture as a teaching technique. If that is the case, there is hardly any way to achieve the goals you set. Students don't learn something by hearing it once, or even twice. They learn by engaging with the material and that is impossible in the short term available in a lecture. At most, what you can elicit is a bit of ephemera from their short term memories. But that isn't learning. Let me suggest two techniques, but the first is, by far, the least effective.

Force the students to take extensive notes with paper and pencil. They can use full size sheets of paper, but should also each have a deck of index cards. Encourage/require the students to record on the index cards the three most important ideas from any given lecture (one idea per card). Take time periodically, if you like, but the end of the class period is likely enough, to ask them what were the most important three ideas. Students volunteer from their already prepared cards. You can accept or veto any idea. Do this every day. Also, encourage/require students to write questions on the cards and pass them to you periodically (this is your every 15 minute solution). Quickly sift through the questions and either answer them immediately or just incorporate them into what you do going forward. At the start of the next class, ask the question, what were the three most important ideas from the previous lecture. Again, volunteers can offer suggestions. Also, see my answer to a different, but related question at CSEducators
The above, still assumes that you use lecture primarily, but this is not an optimal teaching technique. Instead, you want to learn about and use a flipped classroom. A search for "flipped classroom" on this site will reveal a lot of discussion. I point you to an answer I gave for slightly younger students but which also applies here. I try, there, to outline the idea. But the key to it is that in a flipped classroom you use the face time to work with the students, rather than to perform for them. In a situation like this, you have no doubt about their understanding as you are involved directly in developing it.

Of these two techniques, the second is much more likely to be effective. In CS, it also gives you the opportunity to use pairing and group work so that the students can reinforce one another's learning, so that not every idea needs to come from you and so that you don't need to individually reinforce the learning of every student. Lots of wins can be achieved here.
Since it came up in a comment, let me add that one reason to dis-favor lecture as a primary teaching technique is that students have different "learning modalities" and lecturing disadvantages some students - those who are not primarily visual or aural learners. Active learning, combined with other things, is much more effective as it reinforces the learning immediately and drives it deeper into the brain's pathways. Every student is different and instructors should realize that most students are not like themselves unless they are doing doctoral level education.

I cannot both write and think at the same time. In a lecture, I would far rather be listening and thinking critically than writing notes. Your suggestion 1 would make the lecture useless to me.

@PatriciaShanahan, I think, then, that you are an unusual case. Everyone is different, which is one reason lecturing is not an optimal teaching strategy. I would, then, find a way to take notes immediately afterwards, while the ideas are fresh and you can reinforce them through writing and summarizing.

I don't know how unusual I am relative to the whole population. The academic world tends to weed us out. I got much better grades in heavily mathematical courses in my 50's than in my late teens. Some difference may be due to grade inflation, but the intervening invention of the digital camera really helped.

@PatriciaShanahan, in a situation like yours, one possible accommodation is to distribute the lecture notes (usually slides these days) before the lecture. My preference for using them would be to print them out and annotate them during the lecture (by hand) or immediately after, if necessary. It is the writing by hand that is the active part that reinforces the ideas in the brain. If I want to force that to happen, I'd distribute them on paper, rather than electronically. I might do that if I learn that my students aren't studying effectively, otherwise leave them to their own devices.

Writing by hand is exactly what interferes most, for me, with listening, thinking, and understanding. I know it helps a lot of people, but not me. By the time someone gets to college I would think they know whether writing during lectures helps or hurts their learning, and should be let decide for themselves whether to do it or not. After lectures, I would rather spend my time on attempting to integrate and apply what I've learned, which really does help me understand, than spend it on hand writing.

One does not really understand the material until one has tried to use it. So to answer the question of whether students understood what you said, give a problem for them to solve. With a class size of 20-25, you could ask someone to come to the whiteboard and demonstrate a solution. Or perhaps if it's a simple conceptual problem, you could have a multiple-choice question and solicit answers with a show of hands.
As for whether there're any questions related to what was just discussed, the easiest (and obvious) way is to ask the students. Pause the lecture and ask if there're any questions. It's possible there'll be an awkward silence, but that's fine; just give the students ~30 seconds to think about what they don't understand and how to phrase the question. If you're in a culture that is shy by nature, you could do what I witnessed a famous scientist once do: "Since we're in Singapore, we'll skip the first question and go directly to the second question." That led to some giggles but then there was a flood of questions afterwards. If nobody asks anything, then assume they get it.

@NajibIdrissi, I agree completely. The one thing the writer got correct is that students won't understand something until they use it. But I've found all of the suggestions here to be counterproductive.

While these suggestions are pretty traditional and not the best ideas of current teaching pedagogy, they are time-honored and can work, so I disagree with the categorical criticism. Not every student is an anxiety-prone introvert. If you have a class where no one speaks up to discuss or ask questions, you have failed to build the proper safe environment. Work harder at that critical task, from day one. If a student gets stuck on a problem on the board, this is valuable lesson; they thought they understood and discover they didn't. An opportunity to step in and teach now.

+1 for the first paragraph, despite the second paragraph.

In particular, +1 for the first sentence. I don't really understand something until I've applied it. For example, when I am learning a programming language independently, I switch frequently between writing a program and reading about the language.


text:
Language of instruction in the ATER positions in France, and resource for English speaking teaching positions in France that are not postes vacataire
For ATER positions in France, is the teaching always in French or it depends on the university? I've written to one or two departmental contacts for ATER position, but they replied that the teaching was in French, so I ask.
If I've to look for a teaching position in France at a university level that's not a 'poste de vacataire', what are my options?
A bit of background if anyone is kind to read: I'm in a bit of difficult spot as my permit will run out in a couple of months, but I love France and I'd like to stay here. Ideally of course I'm looking for a research position in statistical/mathematical machine learning (more specifically geometric learning) but I'm keeping myself open to teaching positions if the research positions don't show up quickly enough. But the "postes de vacataires" don't usually sponsor a work permit, unlike postdocs and ATER, so my question in general involves resources for teaching positions in English in France at a university level.
Thanks a lot!

Usually, for ATER positions, the teaching is in French. This is essentially due to the fact that for such positions, the majority of the teaching is done  bachelor degree, and the number of classes in English at this level is really low. It is possible that an ATER is in charge of a class at Master level in English, but it will not cover the majority of the teaching duties (96 or 192 hours per year).
There are also ATEN positions (see here for instance) where you are not supposed to do research, but you have to do 384 hours of teaching.
But there are also some offer of post-doc. Maybe you are already aware of this site.

The only case in which you would teach in English would be if you were an ATER inside a language department and you taught English as a subject.


text:
Would this be right to respond to all the reviewers queries simultaneously in single files along with their queries?
I have prepared all answers to all the queries raised by reviewers in major revision. Would it be ok if I respond to both reviewers in single pdf file in following format:

Reviewer #1:
Query 1: Reviewer's first query.
Author response: This is my explanation.
Query 2: Reviewer's second query.
Author response: This is my explanation.

and so on....

Reviewer #2:
Query 1: Reviewer's first query.
Author response: This is my explanation.
Query 2: Reviewer's second query.
Author response: This is my explanation.

In this way both reviewers can see queries of each other. Is this right way of response to reviewers ?

You are thinking about it too much. If you weren't told about any preferred formats, I'd go with separate responses, as not to confuse the reviewers.

As a reviewer I have no problem with all the responses in one document. In practice I will quickly scroll down to my comments, but I may glance at responses on comments I find interesting.

Yes, it is usually ok tobrespond to all reviewers in one file or message. After all, answers to one reviewer might well be interesting for the others, as well.
Coming from a field where answers to reviewers are generally subject to a tight length limit, I would even go a step further and mix/aggregate the answers to different reviewers. Different reviewers often ask the same or related questions, or make suggestions that complement or even contradict one another. As you have to produce one revised version of the paper that needs to suit all reviewers, the comments by different reviewers also need to be considered as a whole rather than per reviewer.

As a referee I would expect the author's reply to mention all of the ways that the paper has changed since I last saw it (whether those changes were prompted by my comments, another reviewer or editors comments, or just the authors realizing that something should change).  After all, these changes might introduce new errors or problems!

I don't know which journal you were talking about, but mostly journals with online submission facility give accessing the reviewers' comments to each reviewer. Though there are two different options:-1) comments to editor and 2) comments to authors, but the 2nd one i.e comments to authors can be viewed by all the reviewers. Moreover, in general, editor sends all the reviewers' comment in one file along with his own comments and decisions to authors as well as to the reviewers. So it is always good to make it in one file.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How I can respond to this major revision?
Recently I have received major revision on manuscript submitted to springer journal. In the manuscript I have devise a methodology by which very decent results are derived and I called these results by name "X" in manuscript. The reviewers comments are as follow:

First reviewer: This reviewer praised my work but told me that my results should not be named as "X" because from properties of results I should better name the results as "Y" and he further suggested to correct some typos. Overall this reviewer is willing to accept my work.
Second reviewer: This reviewer asked me  that if  my results are of type "X", then I should prove certain properties that are required to call results as "X".  He further states that, if my results are not of type "X",  then the title, abstract, introduction of manuscript need to be reviewed.

Now actually my result are really not of type "X", they are of type "Y" as suspected by second reviewer and I mistakenly called them as "X". This name "X" is used in title, abstract and introduction. I guess changing name from "X" to "Y" would not effect the quality of my work.
But, if I do change the name of results from "X" to "Y" would the second reviewer likely to suspect the quality of my work or is it possible that he would reject my work ??
PS. Except naming, there is no other problem in my work.

How much time do you have for the revision? If it's not defined, you can focus more on the problem and prove some properties for the results to be "Y". In peer review, anything is possible in terms of accepting/rejecting papers. Even Nobel physicists have some paper rejected before the ideas were accepted in the community. Just give your best action for this paper and hope for the best.

@MikeyMike I have three months for revision.

@IgotiT Lots of time!

@jakebeal: The time is not problem here, the only thing that I need to do is to change the name from "X" to "Y" (I am admitting my mistake here) and this would not effect the remaining content of my work, the thing that I am worried about is how reviewer would perceive my correction.

I'm not really sure what the question is here. It seems like everyone agrees that the proper name is Y, so the only thing you can do is change it to Y and resubmit.
My guess is this will clear up the confusion of the second reviewer.  And if you don't change the name he will surely reject your paper, because after all it isn't about X.  But it's really irrelevant: you know what the right thing is to do, and you have to do it, even if the consequences turn out to be negative.
Yes, it's possible your paper will be rejected. That is always a possibility whenever you submit a paper for publication.  Get used to living with it.

Fortunately my paper got accepted after honest revision suggested by you.