text:
Does the German PhD system, wherein supervisors examine their students' theses, lead to a conflict of interest?
I understand that in Germany, a PhD student's thesis is (almost?) always examined by their (two) supervisor(s) (and that a further examiner is only called in in the case where both examiners award the highest grade.) This is quite different from the system in the UK, for example, in which supervision and examination are done by different people. I've heard it said, by British as well as German academics, that this aspect of German system leads to a kind of conflict of interest. I've not been able to find much written about this online.
Are there things to be said in favour of the German way of doing things? Or is the criticism perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the German system? (Or is the criticism perhaps sound, but considered to be outweighed by other factors?)
I don't mean to start a debate -- I'm interested in whether this is in fact discussed in Germany (it seems it must be, but I'm not finding anything) and if so, what sort of points people tend to make in discussing it.
(I'm not sure whether there are relevant differences between the humanities and the natural sciences here, so I should mention that I'm only really familiar with the humanities.)

A conflict between which parties? It seems more like alignment of interests than conflict.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

An outsider perspective from North America, where I've found practice varies between disciplines and institutions.
Oversimplifying, and perhaps overstating based on my own personal dataset (I'm an interdisciplinary, senior industry practitioner turned academic adjunct, so that dataset is 8+- departments, not 1-2, but that's still small!):
Mid-tier institutions and more social-science/humanities-type disciplines tend more often to require external examiners joining the (co)supervisors on the committee, and may impose requirements to require impartiality (e.g. no communication between supervisor and external examiner allowed).
Top-tier institutions and more science/tech fields are often more lax and allow examination by the supervisors alone. For instance, 25 years ago my math Ph.D. examination was only my supervisor and a 2nd reader from the same department, and my defense was more like a colloquium talk where questions were about implications for further work rather than defending my work or my knowledge. This does not mean that I got a free ride, merely that the tough discussions happened far earlier, in private.
My point is not "institution ranking and discipline are good explanatory variables", rather "there is a lot of variation, the approaches coexist, and there appears to be at least weak correlation with ranking and discipline."
Importantly, in the situation you describe in Germany, your main impartiality concern seems to be "will the supervisor be too demanding, given their own interest to retain the student as 'indentured labour' longer". Here, where I've heard discussion/concerns, it's more "absent an impartial external examiner, will the supervisors be sufficiently demanding, i.e. not award the Ph.D. for work that is incomplete or insufficiently innovative". I think that is maybe since supervisors are generally encouraged to move students through, and supervisors whose students take "too long" are discussed openly or behind the scenes. In many departments (I'm overgeneralizing), supervisors contribute from their grants to students' funding, and spend time supervising without a reduction in their teaching/service obligations. For them, having students hanging around longer is a dubious benefit.

Yes, the German system offers a unique level of authority to its professors, and this is a common subject of private discussions. There is even an added level of conflict of interest because your supervisor is also your employer. I've heard complains about cases where supervisors were delaying the defence of their best PhD students to keep them as employees for a longer time. That might explain why the 3-4 years that are the norm in some other countries often aren't enough even for very talented PhD students in Germany.
It is perhaps not too surprising that finding public discussions on this topic is difficult. Tenured professors, who benefit from the current system, have no reasons to complain. Those who are not tenured might be afraid to harm their career prospects. However, I've come across an online talk on this topic. It was really refreshing to publicly hear discussions about what my colleagues and I were struggling with: Toxic Professorality in the Lehrstuhlfamily


text:
After 2 interviews, I've been invited to visit the campus for 2 weeks. Looking for advice as I prepare for this trip (5500miles away!)
The position is for a full-time faculty professorship in my field (humanities). I was one of 10 invited to apply.
My first two interviews went very well. I have been told that I am the only candidate to be invited for a campus visit.
It's a really good opportunity, one that I have yet to find closer to home. On that note, it is an opportunity to move away from my country (Canada). The cost of living is too much.
The catch: I am expected to eventually be able to teach in spanish (they are fully aware I only speak English).
The university has been nonchalant about what this will look like because they have never done this before. They are approaching it as we will work out the finer details later. I don't want to come across as unappreciative or annoying, but finer details are important to me and to my decision. I don't know what the salary would be for the time I am learning Spanish, and if this would be enough to cover cost of living.
The trip:
The university is covering my flight and accomodation. I am not sure about meals.
I will deliver 3 seminar lectures (in English) and meet with the humanities facility and students. I have also been told they want to show me around so I can picture living and working there.
They really hope I love it.
Questions:
What should I expect from this campus visit?
Does 2 weeks seem like a long time for a campus visit?
Learning a new language well enough to teach humanities seems like an impossible feat. I'm scared of failing and letting them down. It's such a big risk for both sides. If anyone has had to learn a new language for a professorship before, what made you succeed? What made you fail?
Any advice would be great, thank you!

You work hard at it, that’s what you do. Being immersed in the language helps. Have you learned a second language before?

This is a lot of questions in one.

Do you speak any languages other than English, ideally another Latin language? You mention Canada, do you happen to speak French, for instance? Learning another Latin language well enough to teach in will be far easier for someone who already speaks one. Also, how old are you as that makes a very significant difference to your language acquisition capabilities. I picked up Spanish in less than a year of arriving in Spain in my 20s, but while I moved to France in my early thirties, my French never became anywhere near as good as my Spanish.

Too many questions. The only relevant one I see is the one about you learning another language at a very high level. It requires time and hardwork, but it can be done.
The other questions are more about working place expectations, personal skills, psychology rather than academia.
The trip mentioned in the question is not even related to these topics.
I vote to close.

Yes, two weeks is a long time. A couple of days is more typical. They will probably cover most of your expenses and there will probably be several supper invitations. Hopefully you will have a lot of conversations with people in the department. I'd guess that many (most?) of them are happy enough speaking English in informal conversations.
If you decide to take such a position, start language study immediately at home, perhaps a course audit at your home institution. Then, when you are immersed in the language and culture, it will go easier.
While on the visit, try to get a sense of the cost of living there, perhaps visiting a rental agency or speaking with faculty about what you can expect.
It sounds like they are very interested. They are probably willing to negotiate within reason on salary and such. If they've come this far then it might be hard to disappoint them.
You will probably have a chance to meet some students, perhaps at different levels. Take an interest.

"If anyone has had to learn a new language for a professorship before, what made you succeed?"

In mid-90s, in Boston, I met a prominent Russian spacecraft engineer, whose English was below basic, but who miraculously managed to get an adjunct teaching position at a second-rank university in the downtown. Don't ask me how the poor guy managed to pass the interview, but the fact is that he was supposed to teach some introductory science course for non-science majors -- and he very evidently couldn't do this because of his disastrously poor language command.
Luckily, he had a wife with a Masters in English. Every day, they will sit, together, for hours, preparing the lecture for the next day -- where `preparing' means: literally writing it all down, not only formulae but also all sentences.  And then the poor fellow will learn it all by heart, some 10 - 15 pages. I should add that the guy was almost 60. (Take my word, learning by heart 10 pages at the age of 60 is far not the same as at the age of 30.)
This was hell, but together they coped. Next year, he was given the same course, and it was much easier. Eventually, he became a good lecturer.
PS
If you ask me how that guy had managed, in the first instance, to pass an interview for that job, my guess would be that, with his wife's help, he wrote a coherent story in a good English -- and learned it by heart.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can a pre-print manuscript co-author have the submission taken down if they object to its posting after the fact?
I really want to submit a manuscript to a pre-print server, where it would be only proper to include the P.I. as a co-author. Only problem is that our relationship is completely shot, and the P.I. likely wishes to bury the work rather than publish. Posting to a pre-print may provide a way for me to recoup some record of research productivity (the work took many years of focused effort!). But would there be a copyright or legal precedent for a co-author to object and have the manuscript taken down after submission? To clarify, this would be an upload-first, inform-coauthors-later scenario.
While this situation would be far from ideal, the simple exclusion of the P.I. from the list of authors seems an even worse course for me to take, for many reasons.

Preprint archives require you to confirm that you have consent from all authors to publish the preprint (or rather, arXiv does and I am quite confident that other respectable preprint archives do too).

You caution is warranted. It is misconduct both to publish an article including intellectual contributions from someone you don't credit, and to publish an article, even a pre-print, without permission from the authors.
IANAL, but I think the problems will be of professional ethics, rather than of a legal nature.
Certainly if this person already has it in for you, you are handing them a stick to beat you with.
A better approach would be:

Prepare the preprint. Send it to all co-authors asking for their permission to publish. State that if you don't hear back from them in, say 2 weeks, then you will go ahead and submit the pre-print for publication.
Offer the authors the following options:

Publish as is
Suggest alterations to the currently proposed article.
Be removed as an author of the article. If this is the case, ask them to identify the specific parts of the article they see as their intellectual property, and which they don't wish to be included.

In the end, I'm afraid that if you don't personally own the majority of the data/intellectual content of the article their is not much you can do. If the PI only contributed funding then you are giving them two choices: "I paid for this data, I deserve to be an author" or "I don't agree with the points you are making here, I wish to be removed". These are the two reasonable approaches. It could be that they have or feel they have contributed more than just funding. In which case, they may demand that much more is removed, leaving you with little to put in a pre-print. If a lot of data or ideas was generated by co-authors, then you also have to consider the possibility that the co-authors will take the PIs side, and again, leave you with nothing to publish.
I'm sorry it is like this, but it is the case that in a collaboration, any one author has the power to stop everything.

If they are validly an author, then a fourth option is for them to refuse to have it published without removing their contribution entirely. Some authors can't be removed ethically. Publishing their work could be construed as plagiarism. So, take even more caution.

@buffy this is what I was suggesting with my third option.

@Buffy and of course, they might insist that the whole thing is their contribtuion - that their contribution cannot be disentangled.

Thank you all, your insights are extremely valuable! Yeah, in terms of contributions it is not an exaggeration to say that the conception, execution and analysis would all have been me, a handful of coauthors that only helps acquire the empirical data in lab conditions, and the P.I. whose only contribution was funding. So Anyon's latter advice seems to be my best course so far. Once again thank you all!

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


text:
Do experimental projects harm my theoretical profile?
Half a year ago I finished my undergraduate degree in Physics and I am currently waiting for the results of admission to the postgraduate program. My goal is to start a master's degree either this year or the following year, but specifically in Theoretical Physics.
Although I am currently working on some articles that are the result of my thesis on gravitation, I also collaborate with a professor dedicated to experimental physics. We are finishing a project that I started in the third semester as part of an experimental physics course, in which I developed a theoretical model. However, I am uncertain about this work. My main concern is that, when applying to Theoretical Physics programs, this project will not be relevant or useful for my profile, since the models and results obtained do not have a particularly novel impact, and it is unlikely that the derived articles will be even slightly cited.
Furthermore, although the plan is to continue with this project and generate more publications, I doubt that they will contribute significantly to my development in the area of Theoretical Physics. A professor told me that, given my interest in a theoretical graduate program, this type of experimental work would probably be ignored by admissions committees.
My question is: is it worth continuing to spend time on these types of experimental projects? To what extent could they harm my aspirations to specialize exclusively in Theoretical Physics? Although I know that I could abandon the project, I feel committed, since it was born as a personal idea and was an individual work during that third semester course.

You might be interested: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126616/do-universities-favor-experimentalists-over-theoreticians

Context: I am a former theoretical physics postdoc, and have evaluated applications for a theory PhD program.
As a masters student, you are likely to be perceived as more or less a "baby" from a research point of view. So, while it is true that projects related to your field of interest (ie, your thesis on gravitational theory) are going to be weighted the most strongly in your application, I think it's generally also true that any research you completed will be considered positively. If you are going into phenomenology (ie, applying theory to come up with observational predictions), and if your experimental project is related to observations that are connected to the type of phenomenology you are interested in, then you could make a case that the experimental project gives you a deeper insight into observations. But, even if that is not the case, I would expect that the fact you have demonstrated the ability to do research will be considered a plus.
It is probably true that if you could go back and time, and spend the time you had spent on the experimental project on additional theoretical research, that would help you more. But, that is not an option. And, spending your life optimizing one outcome (like getting into grad school for theory) isn't always the best approach -- spending time to explore another interest gives you a unique perspective which may help you understand things that others don't and if nothing else can give you personal satisfaction.
Another thing to keep in mind is that, assuming you did a good job on the experimental project and are on good relationship with your supervisor, you will get a good letter of recommendation from this person. Having letters from multiple people who can speak positively about your research skills when going into a PhD program will be a positive.
Finally, I want to caveat my answer by adding that different admissions committees will weigh things differently, so your best bet is ultimately just to apply as broadly as you can given your ability to cover application fees and see what happens. My answer is what I would expect an "average" admissions committee member to think.
All of the above is specifically about the question about applying to a PhD program given your research history. However, another aspect of this question is, should you continue working on the experimental side? Here, my answer would change. While you are currently being evaluated on your potential to succeed in a PhD program, as you progress through your PhD and beyond you will increasingly be judged on what you have accomplished. Then, it is important to be the "best" in some specific topic, so people think of you as the expert in that area. This is part of how you build a reputation in your field. It is extremely hard to spread yourself across multiple technical areas and still be "the best." It is a sad fact of life, but there are only so many hours in a day, and you are competing with people who will spend those hours on one area, so splitting yourself will only end up meaning that you are working less on a given area than others in your cohort. So, moving forward, if you know you want to do theory, it will be much more beneficial to you in the long term to give up the experimental work and focus on theory, and indeed to find a niche within theory where you can make strong and consistent contributions.

Your paper sounds relevant and valuable
For application to a masters program it is likely that the expected level of research accomplishment is low.  You are not expected to already by a published specialist in your desired field when coming into a masters program.  Any research publications you have produced are likely to be looked on favourably and will demonstrate research capability.  Even if you were to publish a paper on sixteenth-century French poetry, it would still demonstrate that you have some experience in the craft of undertaking research, performing a literature review, writing a clear and logical paper suitable for academic publication, and then dealing with the refereeing/revisions/proofing process in the publication system.
Publishing a paper in experimental physics is directly relevant to your desired field.  Any good theory in theoretical physics will ultimately need to be testable by experiment and so having experience designing, executing and reporting physics experiments is surely valueable even in that field.  Even if your experiment is not particularly novel, your paper can still demonstrate competence in executing and reporting the experiment, and tying the results back to your theoretical model in a sensible way.  That is extremely valuable for an incoming masters student.  If it is true that the theoretical physics academics would see an experimental physics paper like this as having no value for an incoming student (which I highly doubt) then I think they're twits.  (Richard Feynman would turn in his grave.)


text:
Applying for a Master's Degree with Less Than Perfect Credentials
I'm very interested in pursuing a master's degree at Perimeter Institute and consider applying in the next call. However, I am not an outstanding student. I also don't have a perfect GPA (My average is 7.98/10) and I was emotionally affected by the lockdown caused by the pandemic, which was reflected in my academic performance. However, I have managed to improve my CV and research experience a little this last year that I also completed university. I got an internship in a nearby country and I am currently working on a research project on gravitation that is expected to be published in a few months. I am also in a graduate-level online course and in the next few months I aim to obtain the TOEFL (or an English certification).
Even so, I read in forums like reddit that it is very difficult to get admitted and that they have rejected people with two or three articles in complex research areas. So I would like to receive comments or advice on how to improve my application or learn about the application experience of those who were or were not accepted. Finally I would like to clarify that, although I have more options, the PI is really something I would like to achieve

Normally, there is no such requirement for publications when applying for a masters degree. It is, however, appreciated that you come with some research experience and demonstrate it through a paper in a conference or journal. In some universities, there are pathways (or pre-degree there are different names for such programs) programs that are designed for the students who are actually not ready or suitable to start the mainstream courses. You can ask the admission officer at the institution if there is any such possibility there. If you are worried about the rejection due to your low GPA, consider the schools that offer pathway programs that could bridge your low GPA with mainstream studies by offering some extra courses. Hope it helps.

What do you mean when you mention specialized programs that could match my GPA? I don't know what type of programs you are referring to

Check this link for full list of universities/programs https://ssemw.org/education/universities-in-canada-that-accept-low-gpa-for-masters/


text:
Is it okay to ask your undergraduate final project supervisor for a letter of recommendation for Phd admissions?
She will be my third referee. First one is my Master's thesis supervisor and the second was my masters co-supervisor, both phds. The person in question has just recently undergone her phd proposal defense so I was wondering if she will be a good nominee for my letter of recommendation? Had a very good experience with her and my bachelor's project was also one of the top 3 best projects.
P.S: My field is Electrical Engineering.

You must have had a professor who you did your project under. Generally this will be the PhD advisor of this candidate. Ask the professor (politely ofcourse) to coordinate with this student to write you a letter. That's generally how it happens.


text:
Applying to two PhD positions under the same professor at the same time?
There are other related questions but they are the cases where professors are different as opposed to mine so asking here. In my scenario both the PhD projects are basically two inter-related modules of the same big research project being advertised by the same professor. The job requirements and expertise required are exactly the same so are the benefits and everything. So is it generally okay to apply to maximize my chances or does this create  a bad impression?
P.S: I am applying for a PhD at the Aerospace department of TU Delft, Netherlands.

Were there two separate announcements for the positions, or one, listing both?

@Buffy two separate announcements.

Voting to leave open. Those voting to close should note that this question and its answers will be applicable to others, not just the OP. Also, that the "individual factors" close text includes "Note that questions on the rules of institutions that operate at national or international level are permitted."

Different institutions (and different professors) will want to handle this in different ways. I think the best thing you can do is query the professor, be honest that you are keen on both projects, and ask how they would like you to proceed.

Agreed. And there's nothing wrong or awkward with this - a professor will be happy that the candidate is interested in multiple research directions, and they can direct the candidate towards the project that either suits the candidate better, benefits the professor/institute more, or ideally both.

It may also be that there is not a strong mapping from project to positions - eg project has goals A, B, C but enough funding for 2 students. Prof decides to advertise for a position for A and a position for B, but what they're really interested in is getting two people who are interested in all A/B/C. You'd only find this out by asking.

Another advantage of this is that the professor might say something like "with your background you should apply for position A and not position B", and then you saved yourself and the committee a bunch of work.

Assuming that the two people that get accepted have to work somewhat close together, it's also possible that they plan to have "group interviews" to see how the applicants get along with each other. In that case, they might prefer to have one application expressing interest in both positions instead of two almost identical applications.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me for an applicant to apply for both positions concurrently.  Given that both advertisements use the same selection criteria the applications to both will be similar.  It is worth noting in each application that you have applied for both positions and would be happy to accept either role.  As far as the impression this makes, I would take it as a positive if an applicant is interested in both aspects of the research project --- it would be more strange if they apply for one position but not the other.

I can image a lot of cases, were one PhD positions is interesting and the one with a different angle would not be of interest. For example in an inter-disciplinary project I would work as a mathematician, computer scientist, or data engineer - not as a chemist or social scientist.

@usr1234567: Whilst that is common, those cases would have very different selection criteria for positions.  The fact that the job requirements are the same for both positions (in the present case) probably precludes those types of cases.

It is worth querying upfront how to apply for both positions - it could be there's an entirely separate application process (different committee etc) for each, or it could be the applications process is joint (same people read both applications, one set of interviews for both positions on the same day, etc). They may say you need to apply twice or you can apply once and express interest in both positions, it depends a lot on how their hiring process works.

Given that there were two separate announcements, I'd suggest you make two applications, but each referencing the other. But they shouldn't be identical.
Distinguish each by your special qualifications for that specific project module and make it clear at the beginning which module it refers to.
You can end with a statement to the effect that you would be happy to take either role and have interest in both.
Other scenarios would lead me to make different suggestions, however.

As someone who has been in a similar situation and based on my experience, I would advise against doing this as you risk coming across as indecisive and you may be asked difficult questions during your interview. Instead, if you still have time before the application deadline, I would recommend to try to arrange a meeting with the intended promotor(s) to discuss both positions, to find out which is the better fit, and then apply for this one. With this, you show that you are genuinely interested in their group and not just applying to all positions you can find. You will also become more familiar to the professors when you send in your application, which could improve your chances of getting hired.

I think this would definitely be a concern if the projects were different. I don't think it's a worry because the projects are closely related. I agree with contacting the professor - maybe they would prefer a single application to one of them (and can guide which), maybe they would like a single app that says it's for either, and maybe they would prefer two applications. Either way, yoru last sentence is definitely true!

Imagine that the two best qualified applicants all apply to position A. Then only one of them gets it. Position B will be filled with someone much less qualified than the student who did not get position A. This is way less optimal than the case of both students applying to both positions, both being picked, and then assigned to one position each.


text:
Follow up after PhD Position Interview
So I applied for a PhD position in engineering at TU/Eindhoven and was invited by the PI immediately after a day for a first interview. I gave the interview and the PI said that she would let me know. Now it has been three weeks and there has been no further contact from her. Should I send her a follow up email stating that I would appreciate any kind of feedback even if I have been rejected? The website of the university also explicitly states that even if candidates are rejected after interviews, they are contacted and given a review and feedback of their performance.

It’s too early. They might still be interviewing other candidates, they might be getting in touch with referees or going through HR processes, or it might be that they have made an offer to another candidate and are waiting to see whether it is accepted before they get back to other candidates. Wait a few more weeks.

In the Netherlands, candidates are either interviewed on a rolling basis until the deadline passes (which seems to be your case) or all interview invites are only sent once the deadline has passed. If the deadline for the applications has not passed, then they are likely still interviewing other candidates.
In either case, wait a couple of more weeks before sending a follow-up email.


text:
Is having publication(s) in top-ranked journals a pre-requisite for getting admitted to a PhD in Engineering?
So despite having graduated magna cum laude with a CGPA of 3.75/ 4.00 in my Masters with research and having three conference publications out of which one is peer reviewed, supervisor's acceptance and a good IELTs score (8),my application to a PhD program was declined and the reason stated was that my academic qualifications don't meet the minimum criteria for admission to a PhD! Upon further enquiry, it was revealed that since I don't have journal publications I don't have any significant research output! I am really confused and dejected, is this a  criterion globally? Should I stop looking for PhD positions this means? The University website didn't have any mention of publications in their eligibility criteria though! And neither did my supervisor, was really eager to take me on and really liked my research proposal.
P.S: The university in question is UNSW   Australia.

This seems like a mistake to me. Are you switching fields? The perceived importance of conference publications varies greatly by field. And no, it isn't a global requirement in any case.

No not at all, infact the research proposal approved by the professor is closely related to my Master's research which led to conference publications! But alas the decision was made on journal publications  which unfortunately I don't have!

Following up on a comment, the value of conference publications varies widely by field. In CS they are very valued, even paramount. In other fields, not so much, down to not at all. Conferences in some fields are mostly research seminars in which people explore ideas rather than present important results. I don't know the case in engineering.
But, generally, one doesn't get a PhD to prove that they don't need a PhD and that they are already fully qualified. Some institutions, of course, have very high standards and tremendous competition for admission.
Ask one of your professors if this result is typical of Australian universities, I doubt that it is. But the world is a big place. I doubt, given what you say, that you'd have the same reception in some very good US engineering schools. Cast a broad net.
Another path, that you might want to follow independent of doctoral admissions is to see what extensions of your conference work might be acceptable to reputable journals. I doubt that re-submission of old work to new venues is an option, but if conferences are so unimportant that publication there isn't considered important, it might not take much to reach the submission point. Good luck.

Thank you for the very good advice, I will definitely look into ways of extending my work to get a journal publication.

I believe in your case, the response about why you were rejected from a PhD position is just an excuse, it is not the "real reason", and this is one reason why finding out a reason why you were rejected might lead to incorrect assumptions and false feedback.
Selection for a PhD position is competitive, and it might just be that another person had better qualifications, or had previous experience that fits much better for the position than you, but in any case these are very far from the minimum boundary.
You could even check the minimum requirements for admission to a PhD in UNSW, and its just a Bachelors or Masters degree.

Yes perhaps. And I checked the minimum requirements before even reaching out to the prospective supervisor and he also exclaimed that my credentials are enough to be competitive for the scholarship but shockingly my qualifications were not deemed even suitable for admission let alone a scholarship by the admissions committee!

@Candy You did not mention any scholarship in your initial question, or whom exactly gave you the response about not having a journal publication. And as I said, its that is not the true reason.

Actually I applied for UNSW university scholarship program alongwith the admission application. But I received a letter stating that I wasn't deemed suitable even for admission which was shocking for me. The reply about journal publication came from the admissions department.

@Candy Have you considered that people in admissions might have made a mistake?

yes they might have but since they replied on email regarding lack of publications so I think the decision is final no matter how shocking that might be. Even my prospective supervisor is shocked!


text:
What exactly is the difference between a cover (motivation) letter or a statement of intent?
In the context of application to a PhD position in a specific research group? I have tried googling it but haven't been able to find any concrete answers. Also if they are different, what are the general formats of both?

How is the "Statement of Intent" described? Is it the more typical "Statement of Purpose"? Is it focused on the institution or on the field and research goals?

@Buffy Yes I think it is like a "Statement of Purpose" but more focused towards the future research goals and fit with the institution.


text:
Potential PhD supervisor recommended me to the Director of another university research group, is this a good or bad sign?
So one of the potential PhD advisors at a university let's say X whom I emailed didn't reply but recommended me to another professor who is the Director of another university's say Y's research group. The universities X and Y have research affiliations and these professors know each other personally. I know this because the email with an invitation for interview which I received from Y explicitly stated this. Should I take this as a good sign and go ahead with the formal departmental application process for the first university X (normal admission process here in Canada for engineering) or this indicates that I am not a good fit for X hence the recommendation for Y? I am asking because although the research group of Y is good and relevant to my interests and credentials (hence the recommendation!) but I actually prefer being in the research group of university X as it has a better ranking and research culture overall. Also is this act of recommendation a normal practice specifically in Canada?

Somewhat similar, but the PhD program I got into was not the one I applied to. What was ultimately my program would go and comb through application files in other departments for suitable candidates. So one day I got a call from the department chair asking if I would consider their offer...

I cannot say for sure for the last part of your question since I have neither been to any Canadian university nor know the culture and research practices there. However, generally, yes it is a good sign when a professor recommends you to another research group. In academic, professors and research groups do a lot of collaborative work, so such recommendation is natural. Normally, most of the professors refrain to do so. Well, it could also be possible that prof at X university does not have funding or open position in his group. And as the cliche' goes (again not sure if valid in Canada), at PhD level, it is your research that counts than the ranking of your university.


text:
Any good and easy to use .docx template for Academic CV?
So I have all the sections and contents  ready but still lack a good professional looking template (.docx). There are many "CV builder" sites but some aren't free others don't produce good results.  Does anyone know of a good template especially for PhD applications?

https://github.com/hongtaoh/cv_emulate -- A Good place to get some inspiration.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rK2prBm6ga4EGdlbNZ66NS0_KBLrOCSf/edit - This one is from Harvard.
Most universities have a docx template. Just Search on Google "Academic CV docx template from XYZ".
On the off chance you are okay with using LaTeX - simply go to Overleaf (completely free) and search there.


text:
What should I include in my PhD interview Presentation?
So I have been shortlisted for a PhD scholarship and I have an interview next week.I have been asked to give a 5-minute presentation titled: "A short introduction of my profile and how this fits with the proposed PhD position."
I am a bit confused as everything that I have been searching on in terms of examples for the presentation focuses on research and results and I am not sure if I should focus on that in my presentation, given the proposed title. I would appreciate the help

You should talk about what you've done in research (your profile) and tie it specifically to the PhD position you are applying for (how this fits with the proposed PhD position).
So, if you're applying for a PhD position in an underwater basket weaving lab, your presentation should focus on whichever elements apply to your background: have you've weaved before? have you worked underwater? If you haven't weaved baskets, do you at least have experience transporting things in baskets?
You want someone watching your presentation to see how you will be successful in the role based on what you've done before. 5 minutes is very short. Don't waste time with empty promises or things that anyone could say. Focus on concrete things that are special about what you've accomplished. It's okay if those accomplishments are not entirely successful: if all you've done is show conclusively that a particular weave won't work that's still very useful background because research is all about getting it wrong before you get it right.


text:
Want to submit thesis to arxiv, but currently affiliated to another institute. What to do?
I want to publish my thesis made at university (A) to arXiv.org.
However, I am currently affiliated with another institute (university B). While the original thesis is written at A, do I mention the original or current institute in the paper? As arXiv imposed strict rules regarding the affiliations...
What do you suggest I do? Should I submit it with my current affiliation and mention the original or am I overthinking things?

First, congrats on finishing your thesis, and thanks for taking the time to upload it to arXiv!

What do you suggest I do? Should I submit it with my current affiliation and mention the original or am I overthinking things?

Yes to the last question. Use your current affiliation when you register on arXiv. That way people can contact you where you are now, and not get confused trying to contact you where you used to be. In the text of your thesis, acknowledge where the work was done. If the text of the thesis has an email address to reach you, be sure that email address still works.

Thank you for your response! Yes, an email address is added to the text of the thesis but this is the old email address (which still works) and includes the details of the former institution. So if I understand correctly for the thesis itself it would be preferred to enter the new email address + details within the author section and include an acknowledgement somewhere in the text? Thank you in advance

If both email addresses work then it doesn't matter whch you use. You are still overthinking things. For affiliation make it your CURRENT affiliation so people can find you.


text:
What should I [34/F] do about my rude and mean supervisor [60s/F] when I want to finish my PhD?
Since the beginning of my PhD (in psychology), I have felt that my principal supervisor has an issue with me. She has always looked at me in an unpleasant way and behaved dismissively.
I have a lot of health problems, including a visible disability (a hand tremor), and she seems to be resentful of this, but I don't understand why.
She's at the top of her field and everyone thinks she's great. She doesn't treat anyone else like this.
There have been a few incidents which stand out lately:

When I had a health problem as the result of COVID (raised intracranial pressure), she raised the possibility that it was caused by stress, and I said that no, COVID led directly to a neurological complication (I have idiopathic intracranial hypertension). Then she said, "well, we all know how the biopsychosocial model works..."
I lost my job after a month because of poor fit (unrelated to PhD). In response she asked if they met me in person before hiring me (they did), insinuating that they wouldn't have hired me if they knew I had a disability.
She told me I was going to have a hard time at my Confirmation of Candidature because the School were hesitant regarding my health problems. I said that I would take it to HR and the legal team if there were an issue, and she said, "yeah, they're woke city". At Confirmation, everyone was actually very accepting of my health issues and gave my supervisors a hard time for putting me through the ringer.
I have recently developed a problem that has been giving me vertigo. I had to explain because my supervisor couldn't understand why this meant I couldn't travel to a conference on the other side of the world. When I explained some more, she was like "oh, so can you go to the movies if it affects your vision?" I said I probably wouldn't go to the movies at the moment, and she said, "oh, you're like a little girl in a bubble!"
She then continued the conversation to ask if these problems run in my family. Some do, some don't, but no one has as many health problems as me. She says, "you're the black sheep of your family!" I said "no, my family isn't like that". And she corrected herself, "well, the genetic black sheep!"
Whenever any part of my PhD is extended unnecessarily, she says, "oh well, you're part-time - you've got 10 years!" I've made it clear multiple times that I don't want to take 10 years.

She always makes sure to deliver these insults quickly, in the middle of conversations, and with a smile, so there's not much opportunity to respond.
There was an incident, which made me wonder if it was the source of her resentment. She was showing me a website called Cancer Atlas, which shows you cancer stats around Australia by suburb.
I looked up my suburb, and it was about 30% lower than the national average, and she said, "yeah, because you're rich!" I said that I think it was because there were more people working in white collar professions where they weren't exposed to environmental toxins, and she said "because you're rich!" I'm not that rich, but I do live in a wealthy area.
I was also meant to be doing a project which was related to a grant she received, but she changed her mind, and I'm now developing a new topic, which requires me to build an online intervention independently. I'm also required to pay for the website.
I'm not sure what to do. My research is in quite a specific area - psycho-oncology, and there is no one else who specialises in this at my university. I don't feel confident travelling 24 hours in a plane to go to a conference with her, and she also hasn't listed me as one of her supervisees on the university website.
I want to get my PhD, but I also don't want to sacrifice my mental health.
Thank you!

Are you being funded by the department, or paying for the PhD yourself?

PhDs are funded by the government in Australia, but I’m not on a scholarship because I wanted to do it part-time.

I'm not sure how this is different from your previous question. Can you clarify?

Isn't the meaning of "idiopathic" "of unknown source"?

How far into your phd are you?

Assume that there is nothing you can do to stop her being mean. There is a decent chance that you could get someone to tell her off, but there is ultimately no way a university can force its staff to actually be good PhD supervisors. Pushing back against her might contribute to an overall better system (it helps to de-normalize such behaviour), but it will probably not help you personally.
So the options for you are sticking it out or looking for a better supervisor.
Some important things to consider in making your decision:

Are you planning to continue in academia after your PhD? If so, you really want a supportive PhD advisor. It seems unlikely that you'd get the necessary supportive letters of recommendation from her.
Is she just mean, or is it plausible that she would actively sabotage your PhD? Check your universities regulations to see how much power your supervisor has.
Regarding your mental health: Imagine her making comments like this for years and years. Is this something you can shrugg off? Some people can just file stuff like this away under "shit shitty supervisors say", but there is no shame if you aren't one of them. If the hope that she will stop soon is essential to you coping with the situation, you need to get out of the situation asap.

Thanks so much for your comment. It hadn't occurred to me that she might sabotage my PhD, but I think it's possible.I'd like a new supervisor, but I don't really know how to go about it. I might contact one of my supervisors from my undergraduate degree who I still am in contact with.

What cause would any PhD supervisor have to sabotage their student's achievement? That makes no sense. It reflects badly on their reputation, takes up significant portions of their time and diverts funds that might otherwise be directed to a different student. That seems pathological to me if it were true

I think you have two options. Stick it out or switch to a new supervisor, even at a new university. I'd guess the best option is the first as you are deep into the program and there are no guarantees that a new one will be an improvement. But that is just my guess.
In particular, complaining about her to some higher authority is probably going to be counterproductive in the long run. As others and yourself have noticed, she has the power to negatively (or positively) affect your future. Moreover, there is a chance that she doesn't even recognize that she is being insensitive. People "on the spectrum" can act like that and there are plenty of such people in academia, perhaps even more so among the "top" performers where intense focus is an advantage. Given the nature of your comments, I'd guess that she would be surprised that your interpretation of her remarks is so different from her own.
The other issue is to take care of your own mental state. Telling you to "just let it go" is probably not enough and you might seek guidance from a mental health professional about effective strategies for dealing with this.

These are very bad signs:

... she said "because you're rich!" I'm not that rich, but I do
live in a wealthy area...
I was also meant to be doing a project which was related to a grant
she received, but she changed her mind, and I'm now developing a new
topic, which requires me to build an online intervention
independently. I'm also required to pay for the website.

FWIW, I have a close family member who phrased something in a way with their advisor at the outset which led the advisor to believe that they were independently wealthy. This led the advisor to eagerly accept them, but with no funding, and as time progressed, they obviously had no plan to graduate the person with a PhD. Apparently it was too profitable to have the student around, doing gruntwork, and partly funding the department out-of-pocket.
In the end, my family member could not get a PhD from that department, and had to switch to an entirely different program, ultimately getting a PhD in a different field at the same university. It's only one data point, but in my experience an advisor who is dragging their feet about awarding the PhD, and believes they can get an apparently wealthy student to fund their projects on an ongoing basis, is running something of a scam.

(Copy/pasting a previous answer of mine. It's not the same situation, but the answer is similar.)
Talk to your graduate program director. These are faculty members whose role includes addressing student concerns. Here's an example:

Graduate Program Directors are responsible for managing all aspects of their graduate programs and for advising students on academic matters.
The GPD must have a strong commitment to graduate education and be willing to devote the necessary time and resources to ensure the smooth day-to-day functioning and overall academic quality of the graduate program. The GPD functions as the primary point of contact for all academic matters concerning Doctoral and Master’s students in the program and facilitates conversation between the graduate degree program, the academic department and GPS.

And one of the responsibilities is:

Advises students how to resolve problems that may arise during their program

Given that you're [deep] into the program, you've likely encountered them already, since one of their other roles is "Works with faculty members to monitor the progress of students throughout the graduate program". They might have, e.g., been present during the annual review of your progress (if you have such a review). They might even have asked you if you have any problems with your supervisor. You've encountered a problem, so they can help you resolve it.

Thanks - good advice. I'm just worried about it getting back to her.


text:
Are there any PHD scholarships in Public Policy/ Public Administration or Public Management in UK, US or Germany? For international students?
Am searching for a fully funded PHD scholarship, in Public Management, Policy or administration in US, UK or in Germany? For international students, I come from Kenya and I have a master degree in Public management from Japan,

Welcome to Academia. Unfortunately, this is what is called a shopping question, These will be closed on this site.

PhD scholarships exist in Germany, but are not the main way in which PhD students are supported in Germany (this is somewhat discipline specific though). More common is that PhD students are employed. Foreign PhD students are also eligable. So if you are interested, just apply when such a position becomes available.


text:
What if I found out that I missed adding some citations to my thesis after the final submission
What if I missed adding some citations to the my thesis after the final submission to the graduate editorial office? Still few days before graduation

Ask your supervisor! Chances are it depends on local rules whether you can (or even should) do anything about this, and we can't tell you.

What if the editorial office has strict rules concerning the final submission

Again your supervisor will know how to deal with the rules. But this sounds like a clerical error not a didn't-do-the-work error, so I'd hope they'd be sympathetic.

In academia, it's very common to learn about papers related to your research after you've written your literature review, after submitting, or even after publishing. It's expected. No literature review can contain every single bit of connected literature. Normally, when you submit a paper to a journal, the referee has a chance to point you to relevant literature you may have missed. Giving talks at conferences is another way to get this feedback. But even with all that, sometimes you will realize years after publishing, that your literature review was incomplete.
It's great that you want to improve your thesis even at the last minute. If that's allowed, then by all means add to the bibliography. But it's also fine to fix this up in the version of the thesis that you submit for publication (e.g., in math, you might turn the thesis into two or three papers, and their literature review can be more thorough than the one in the thesis).
Remember that no one expects the thesis to be perfect. The only question is whether it's above the bar and earns you the degree. Almost no one ever goes back to read your actual thesis. They read the papers you published based on your thesis.
Now, if "missed adding some citations" is code for "plagiarized" then my answer changes entirely. It's important to give credit where it is due, if you got an idea from somewhere else, or quoted something else but failed to cite it or use quotation marks. In cases like that, you'd want to try hard to fix the thesis and explain the situation to your advisor and committee, so they could accurately assess the thesis and so that the library doesn't end up microfilming and keeping on file a work created using plagiarism. But I doubt you're in that situation.


text:
My master's supervisor and paper co-author is not willing to give a letter of recommendation for PhD admissions?
She is saying that since she has left the University and moved to another country and working in a full time job there, she won't be able to write the letter. She maintains she is very busy and is also not under any obligation since she is not a part of the university anymore. At the most, she says she would write only for a single college application whereas I on the other hand am planning to apply to at least 4 colleges! What should I do? Would this affect my admission in a very negative manner? I am highly worried.

How sad. This is what we call "being a jerk".  Your advisor is not obligated to write you recommendation letters in any case, but it is an academic norm that she would be willing to do so, at least if your work with her was satisfactory.  This norm attaches to her taking you as a student and co-authoring a paper with you, not particularly to her being employed by the university.  Unfortunately, your advisor has all the power here as far as what letters she writes and what their contents is.  Happily, it appears you have some reasonable suggestions for how to proceed.

Never insist on a LoR from someone who isn't excited to write you one, no matter how dumb their reasons.

I cannot fathom what thought process or circumstance would make me agree to send one LoR but not four, as they would almost certainly be very similar.

@Anonymous exactly that is what I fail to understand.

@JohnBollinger Why is it sad? Would you rather prefer to get a bad recommendation? Or all recommendations should be good per definition. If so, what's the use?

@yarchik, it is sad that the Candy's advisor has treated them poorly.  Agreeing to write recommendations and then writing bad ones would be a different form of treating Candy poorly, which would also be sad.

@JohnBollinger Of course, we will never know, but maybe this is her polite way to refuse to write a bad letter. See answer of Significance below. I would not call someone "a jerk" without knowing the whole story.

@yarchik, giving Candy a phony, misleading reason for not writing recommendations would also be a jerk move, especially inasmuch as the advisor apparently says they might be willing to write just one.  Of course my judgement is of the behavior as described by the OP.  If that's not a reasonably accurate characterization of their actual situation then it does not reflect in any way on anyone that I describe the behavior as "being a jerk".

In industry the standard expectation is that you do most of the work yourself.  Draft the letter (one or two versions) or at least give an accurate and comprehensive list of bullet points. Then the reference only needs to do a quick edit and sign it.  I've been too long out of academia to assess whether this would be frowned upon, but it's basic human nature: if you want someone to do something for you: make it as easy as possible for them.

If this were any other job then people would advise her to never do free work for her ex-employer. Only academia is entitled enough to think differently. I commend her for her healthy boundaries. If you want her to do work for you, pay her (actually, have your university pay her).

And before anyone protests my choice of word: yes, calling someone a jerk because she is only willing to do one piece of free work for you instead of four makes you majorly entitled.

@EthanBolker offers a clever potential solution. Also consider, though, whether there might be someone else who can write you a stronger recommendation. Is there another academic with whom you have worked, and who you might have impressed? There are two potential issues with a recommendation from your Masters advisor, if you insist upon getting it. 1) “I’m too busy” is sometimes a polite way to avoid saying, “I don’t think you are a good candidate for a PhD and I can’t write you a strong recommendation.” 2) Even if she does genuinely think highly of you, if she is unhappy about taking the time to write a recommendation, her recommendation letter may end up being too brief or non-specific to be helpful: a recommendation letter that does not say much is usually taken as meaning that there is not much good that can be said.

Thankyou for the answer. My major issue is that I hope that universities abroad especially Canada and Australia don't put this obligation of getting a letter from your MS advisor.

Also it would be weird that her comment implies that she doesn't consider me worthy enough for a PhD, since she once specifically suggested me I should consider taking up PhD studies as I have the capability .

@Candy It's unlikely that not having a letter from a particular person will sink your application.

I’m in Australia and have accepted PhD students who were reluctant to ask their Masters advisors for letters. Peoplr sometimes do this because they don’t want their advisors to know they are applying elsewhere and want to keep their options open for a PhD with their Masters advisor.

As an aside, when you get a letter from someone else, it would be good for them to mention that you don't have a letter from your advisor because they have left academia, as it does bad to not have one from your advisor without an explanation.

On the face of it that is strange. Most academics I know would be willing to write the necessary letters under those circumstances. Submitting one letter to multiple places would not be much more work than writing the letter in the first place, and she has agreed to write one.
Perhaps your current department chair (or some other professor at your   school) would be willing to get her letter of recommendation and do the work of submitting it to several institutions, perhaps with a cover letter explaining why it comes from them rather than directly from her.

Will the cover letter be sent to the Postgraduate office? Since the submission of letters in done online meaning that a single document is uploaded only.

@Candy Part of figuring out whether this strategy is viable means working out the mechanics with the local professor doing the submissions.

@Candy: They can simply upload both parts as a single document.  A related approach is that they write their own letter based on what the supervisor said.  "Candy's supervisor, Dr. Doe, no longer works in academia and could not spare the time to write recommendation letters.  However, Dr. Doe informs me that Candy's work was excellent..."

this might be harmful however. A natural question to ask is: "Why didn't Dr. Doe write the letter if Candy was so excellent?". Clearly "Dr. Doe does not think Candy is worth their time" would we rather admit Candy who Dr. Doe doesn't value or take a student whose letters are coming from their direct advisors etc... It seems a little risky to try to get this letter. Better to just have a letter from the supervisor which maybe includes a sentence here and there about Dr. Doe's excellent opinion rather than a sub-in for Dr. Doe's letter.

@SidharthGhoshal Admission committee's are aware of the existence of jerks. I would read this as "Dr Doe had a falling out with the department and doesn't want to have anything to do with us any more", rather than a reflection on the student.

@Marianne013 An advisor letter of rec doesn't have to do with the department, but rather the advisor themselves. There's no quota or tenure requirement for writing letters. However, one gains a reputation in the community that they produce and recommend good students who go on to do good things, or word gets around that the students Dr. Doe recommends are all incompetent. I agree that the best way to frame it is the letter is coming from a more established and well-known professor, not that Dr. Doe refused.

You don’t want a letter from someone less than willing to write one. Could be that she doesn’t think she can write a good one for you, or it’s possible she is totally checked out. Doesn’t matter - if she is unwilling it’s not going to be a stellar letter. You should move on.

See if you can find another reference. Speak to someone else in the department and see what they say. Even if you don't know them too well they can write a letter and it can remedy the situation. Getting more than one is a good idea anyway.
Also, you can in many applications only send the letter once you have got an offer, they will "request references" at some point during the process and this can regularly be after interview (check the box on application that says "ask me for prior permission to contact" the referee). So, at that point, contact your referees who agreed to in principle to write a letter, and tell them to expect something, reducing their workload to only the most necessary times.
This way the original reference who has left the department might agree to write something given its only this one time, and it means getting the job, rather than just a speculative application.

Ask her again, friendly, but with a special emphasis on the importance of her letter to your career and how helpful it would be.

If she does not agree, take her offer to write one letter only, but insist that she will write it in a general form, say starting with "To whom it may concern", etc., such that you can use it for more than one opportunity or even later in life.

(You might write a draft of it yourself, and just ask her, if she can agree to the draft or might want to add/change a part of it and finally sign it. This I did myself one time, because my advisor was notoriously known for not being able to come up with such things himself, but very good and fast at reviewing/commenting.)

If she does not do this either, skip any further contact with her, and go back one level up, to some formal body of the university you did your masters with, in order to let them write you some kind of recommendation. Alternatively, there might be other professor(s) who know(s) you from the time being there, then ask one of them. If your advisor is problematic, this is usually well known among the faculty peers already, and they are possible eager to help, because essentially it also draws a bad picture about them, and the whole institution, if they don't.

(Maybe there is even the possibility of filing an official complaint, although this does not really change anything about the recommendation letter itself. Things like this should nevertheless get some attention, since in the end they are an example of misconduct on behalf of your former advisor. If they take them as their students, they just have the obligation to do such minor things to help you afterwards.)

I agree with those who say that writing a recommendation letter a norm. Even if the supervisor and the co-author do not think that you are a good candidate, they can still write an letter honestly outlining your strengths and weaknesses - the academic world is big, and in some places they may still decide that you are good enough, or that you have sufficient background to learn.
One way of countering "I am too busy" claim is suggesting to write a draft yourself, and letting them simply to edit it as they wish. In fact, it is often the case that the referee would ask for a draft... although it has the obvious pitfall that students (particularly international students) have little idea of what and how things should be said to make them look as attractive candidates.
On the practical side, there is little that you can do: they are not under any formal obligation to write a recommendation, and even if they were forced to do so in some way, you may easily end up with a recommendation letter that does more damage than benefit to your applications.
On the other hand, for bachelor or master students the record in taking courses relevant to the application and being a good student often carry more weight than the actual research record. Thus, recommendation letters from your former professors, who were not involve din your research project may well be enough.
Finally, depending on the specific case, the recommendation letters may be a decisive factor or a simple formality. E.g., in many cases the candidates are are proposed informally by supervisors to their colleagues, while the requirement for a certain number of recommendation letters is imposed formally by the university. In this sense the Q.'s author seem to be already facing an uphill task.

What this exercise tests, is "1)  Can you cast a wide net? And  2 ) if you cast that net, will you land anyone who is in a position to help you, actually take an hour or two out or their time. If you reach out to lots of people, you would be surprised, those who would be willing to assist. Perhaps think about every academic you have interacted with in your field. Now is the time to be creative.

I can ask other teachers to write one ofcourse but my understanding is that one from your Master's advisor is a must (although an unspoken rule)?

while it might be ideal to have your degree supervisor be your strongest and most active relationship, consider that there are many reasons that might not happen.   It's ok to be concerned about bad reasons, but your job now is to focus on good ones.  Think about other faculty who have given you specific, meaningful ideas or motivation, through your masters or for your future work, and talk about the value of those -  for the references and in other application materials.  Leave the bad aspects behind.

I suspect the OP was already aware of the fact that it might be possible for them to find an alternate recommender. I also suspect they already know how one would do that.


text:
Master Thesis Positions in Germany without University Affiliations
I live in Germany and want to pursue a PhD degree in Biology/Bioinformatics/....
I already have a Master's degree from outside the EU. However, it did not have a thesis or a research component. I do have practical experience as I have worked in a leading cancer hospital as a pathology lab technician.
As most PhD roles require a thesis and/or research experience. I'm finding some "Master Thesis" openings. Can I apply to them directly to bridge my thesis & research gap? Is it acceptable that I am not currently a student and not affiliated with any university here? If yes, how does it work?

I am pretty sure you have to be a) enrolled at a university to be eligible for such a position and b) might even need to proof that you have already amassed enough masters credits for some of them.

There is no such thing as "Master thesis position" in Germany (as far as I am aware of). If you want to pursue a Master's from Germany you have to enroll in a study program. There is no way to just work a Master's thesis without the study (at least I have never heard of such a thing - the universities where I have been certainly do not offer such a thing).

There are master Thesis positions in the sense that research institutions or industry will offer the opportunity to write the thesis with them on a specific topic they want to have looked into. But to actually get such a position you have to be an enrolled master's student.

True. But, as you said, such a thing is neither sufficient nor necessary to be able to write a master's thesis. Also "position" may not be the right word here as one can not be paid for a master's thesis

Sometime an topic by a company comes with an additional opportunity for an internship in parallel, but being paid by a company for writing a thesis is not allowed in  Germany.

You first need to figure out how much of your non-EU masters degree is recognized in Germany. It could be recognized as equivalent to a masters degree, equivalent to a bachelors degree or not recognized as an academic degree at all. This depends on a lot of details so I can't give a general answer here.
Next, knowing what degree you have from a German standpoint, you can apply for a suitable continuation eventually leading to a PhD. Note that only universities or applied universities (Fachhochschulen) are allowed to give out masters degrees or PHDs, so you will have to apply at one of these.

My Masters is fully equivalent to a German masters degree. Even though it doesn’t contain a research track

@mjalajel The question is not whether you or I consider it equivalent, the question is whether the German government does. The fact that it does not contain a research track may mean it doesn't but I don't know. If it does you can apply to a PhD program at a university the same way someone with a German masters degree could. That is the point of saying they are equivalent.

@mjalajel And if they really are considered equivalent officially, I am pretty sure that you might well be able to find a PhD position as is. Germany isn't the US, it is often much more important that you fulfill the requirements on paper (in this case hold a valid MA degree with good/very good grades) and show interest and enthusiasm than already have a ton of research experience.


text:
How to publish if the other co-authors do not cooperate (a concern)
I am an ERC, postdoc, I have completed my work and try to publish.
I am afraid my co-authors, one of them is the PI, do not want to publish, due to lack of interest in their part and busy with their own projects (I see signs like lack of responses in their part).
I am the one who do most of the work, the other co-author helps me in the experimental design process (not the entire thing though, just part of it). The PI does not help a lot to be honest, but I thought fair enough as it is my project and I used the facility (PI's lab) though  with some difficulties as there are not much support.
I did some research that it seemed impossible to publish without the consent of the other authors. So, I am wondering if there is anything that I can do to publish my work if the co-authors do not cooperate?
I haven't submitted the paper yet and they haven't told me explicitly that they don't wanna publish. My concern is they are blocking the publication process either delaying or not wanting to publish it. I know I need to talk to them, it's not also easy to be in touch with them, as they are not that responsive to my email. So, I am wondering what should I do if they are blocking this publication process ?

You need the consent of all authors to publish with a reputable publisher. You seem to have two options.
The first is to convince them that what you have should be published. Then the problem goes away. You seem to be assuming too much about their willingness. Talk to them. You should, perhaps, start with the PI who may have valid concerns about publishing. But where you start is partly a question of personalities and, so, hard to give good advice from a distance.
The second option is to abandon the joint work and do something that doesn't require their authorship, though it might include their participation in lesser ways. In some fields that is pretty hard to do without the PI being an author and I think you may be in one of those fields. So you probably need to convince the PI even for this option. Good luck.

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. I know I am assuming. This is the worst scenario that I can think of; I hope this will not happened but would like to be prepared for this. This presupposition  is based on some experiences that I have with the PI. The other co-author is also ecr and actually pretty nice& more responsive before  (Im saying bfore bcs I hv sent email (more than a month & follow up emails & no responses). I corresponded with the PI  about other matters, but when I mentioned the manuscript, no rspnses. I told the PI that Im available to discuss but no responses (yet).


text:
Anxiety before PhD thesis submission. Can reviewers send it back?
I'm in the very last stage of my PhD journey. I'm aiming to submit the thesis next month (June 2024). However, I'm feeling quite nervous and having lots of self-doubts.
So basically, I sent my first supervisor a full draft last year, but it took her 4 months to read and comment on it. She got back to me with her comments and a list of points I needed to address in March. She said the empirical chapters were very interesting and I should focus on connecting the empirics back to the theory. However that draft wasn't yet ready for submission.
I've been working on revising the dissertation since March, and have addressed all of the points she raised. Today my supervisor suggested that I contact other PhD committee members, however she told me to submit it whenever I feel ready, rather than saying if she thinks it's ready.
I'm both excited but also quite nervous now. I still have 1 more month to continue working on it, but I don't know if the revised dissertation is good enough or whether "it's ready"...
I really appreciate your advice on this. For those who have had the same experience, when do you know your dissertation was ready?...
Does this sound like I'll pass...? I just want to finish it, and don't really care about grade tbh...
Thank you

How could we possibly know that? You have much more information about your advisor, your field, your committee, your country, your department, your ... than we.

I agree with Maarten, this is very much dependent on the local culture. You should talk to your advisor about your concerns. In my field and local culture, the thesis is almost never accepted as-is and is sent back for revision, but also it's extremely rare to fail, for students that fail there is almost certainly a severe conflict with their advisor about the content of the thesis and overall body of work toward the PhD. I have no idea if this applies to you though because I'm not local enough for you!

"when do you know your dissertation was ready" - for most of us it's when your supervisor says it's ready. That your supervisor doesn't want to give an explicit green light feels like a failing on their side. A charitable reading could be that your previous draft was so close to ready that they are sure your next version will be fine, but it still seems a little sloppy not to even want to look at the final version prior to submission.

Thanks a lot for these comments.
Also thanks for the "charitable reading" xLeitix.
Actually my supervisor said in March that she expected me to submit in June or July and wanted me to graduate this year. She's not gonna read the revised draft again before that (same as my 2nd supervisor).
Both of them said I have interesting empirical findings and just needed to try to connect it back to the main theory.
I just re-read the thesis and think it's not too bad, but of course not outstanding...
Can a submitted thesis get returned for revision...?

This question will, almost certainly, get closed. But I thought I would throw this in before that happens, in case it helps you.

We can't possibly know if you are ready or how likely it is that you will pass.
Deciding when you are "ready to submit" is a skill that academics need. If you go into academia (as a lot of people with PhDs do) you will be expected to submit articles. You have to know when to submit.
Nervousness is normal, but if it is so extreme that it is debilitating you, you should seek help. In the USA, anyway, most (all???) schools have some sort of help for students.
While dissertations can be rejected, this is pretty rare. You may well get a final request to revise. Your mentor ought not let you submit something that is clearly not ready, and universities have no interest in rejecting dissertations. First, most committees aren't nasty. Second, it looks bad for the department and then the school.

Good luck!

And a dissertation rejection is squarely on the advisor, not the student.

Thanks a lot! So my read on this is that if my supervisor is proactively suggesting that I contact defense committee members, it seems like she thinks it can pass...

I think so. There are no guarantees, but, if your committee is made up of reasonable people, it should.


text:
Struggling with PhD interviews
Based in London
I did really well in my undergrad but ok in my master's in physics (average was around 66 with my lit review being 67 but 2 modules were below 60 so it was a pass).
In my last year of master's I received a PhD offer for my first one. But due to personal circumstances I could not take it and went into work.
It has been 6 years now since I applied. Almost every year I have applied for PhDs and almost always get interviews (I think only once I never heard back on an application) but I always fail.
I'm rarely given feedback. In a couple they said it was close but preference was given elsewhere. In one they said my interests seemed different.
I understand in a lot of them where I didn't get feedback I was just bad at answering questions or not what they were looking for in terms of skills and experience, and this is probably my struggle.
Last year I really prepared hard. I was to give a 5 mins presentation on a topic, followed by being questioned on that topic, followed by being questioned on a research project I did. The presentation went really well even though presenting is a weak point for me. But I got grilled hard after. I felt it was unfair because they only let me know the nature of the interview a few days before (bear in mind I work and have a family to take care of). I don't think any amount of preparation would have prepared me, they seemed to want to much info. The presentation was on anything we wanted to pick related to a quantum technology - it could be as broad as we wanted or as specific. Additionally it's a 4 year cdt, I'd expect to be learning a lot of the stuff they asked in the first year, hence the extra year. The research project questioning also went bad but it had been 8 years since I had done it and honestly the questions I got stuck on were just because pretty minor in hindsight, it was take seconds to refresh myself or Google it. I still gave a good overview of what the project was, what I did, and what I found etc.
It sounds like I am not accepting any responsibility but really did feel the interview was unfair. Anyways, they didn't give me feedback either. I did email them the above points just to try and understand but they ignored that as well.
I really enjoyed both undergrad and grad research projects (grad was just a lit review with a little new stuff). My undergrad project where I really got to own it, I felt like there was still so much more to do - I could totally see myself doing a PhD and the time flying by quickly. And I'm super bored of working, it is just not intellectually challenging in the slightest.
I learn a lot better by doing. I find interview prep difficult since I am learning just for the sake of an interview, and feel if I don't already know the background, the learned knowledge is obvious (I don't lie on my applications in any way so sometimes I find it odd when im accepted).
Anyways enough ranting. What can I do better to prepare? Or is it not for me?  Please be nice
Another issue I'm having is references. A lot of my supervisors/lecturers have stopped responding. I've started using work references. My master's supervisor said they can't give me a reference because they are too busy - that was super demoralising. I wonder if work references will be much weaker even though I have no choice but to use them now.

A lot of this is about seeking funding. Contact a supervisor you might want to work with, and try to arrange to do a PhD with them. Hopefully money will follow, but if not at least you can start the PhD and self-fund. That, and basically just keep applying until you get one, can require a lot of attempts I think. But most of the difficulty is competing for funding, not getting accepted on a PhD program with a supervisor.

Hmm not a bad idea and interesting to know about the findings, I guess it makes sense. I couldn't afford to do this though.

(1) Could your master's supervisor just give you one more reference, to you, which is not kept secret from you? That might be better than no reference from them, if it was possible. (2) Do you know anyone who could give you a practice interview? (3) If a person is rejected and then sends an email about why they found the interview hard, I think there is almost zero chance that the interviewers will seriously reconsider the decision, even if they have some sympathy. (4) Could you apply for a one-year masters instead and plan to do a PhD after that?

(1) My master's supervisor has never given me a reference. I relied on my undergrad supervisor and a lecturer but they've gone silent (even tried contacted the uni to see if they were still around but no response! (2) I don't know anyone who could unfortunately but it's a good idea, will have a look (3) I would never expect a decision reversal and purely wanted to understand the interview process so I could be better prepared (4) I have thought about it but I am conflicted. I've usually been applying for 4 year PhDs where the first year is essentially a masters. And costs, unless a bursary

In my country, it is common for people to work as a researcher (typically with a research grant) before going into PhD - sometimes they even do the PhD as part of their research work because research grants are much easier to get than PhD funding. Is that not an option in the USA?

I think it is hard to say whether the problem really was interviews. Usually there is competition and you may have run against competition that was better also in other respects (like better MSc, having produced a published paper out of it etc.). Of course your concern is legitimate, however avoid getting too obsessed about the interview issue - there is a random element regarding how good your competitors are and you may fail or even at some point succeed regardless of the interview (assuming you show a certain minimum degree of competence there even if there are issues).
That said, I don't think that it is "unfair" that you don't get more information about the interview in advance. I'd think that they want to check how competent you are handling issues on a day to day basis when doing a PhD. They don't want to see the results of a specific preparation for a specific interview; this would not be very informative about how you'd be as a PhD student. Of course I don't know how exactly these interviews ran, but you should also be able, when you present something, to anticipate what kind of questions this will raise. Even if you don't know the correct answer to all questions, you can still handle questions competently by putting them into perspective and for example saying what you think you'd still need to do in order to address a question properly. They may also specifically be interested in your handling of questions for which they may not even expect you to know the answers, so that they see whether you have good strategies for how to learn and improve.
I remember once having been member of an admission committee and we had a candidate who said a few really silly things in the interview, but we got the impression that they had probably been nervous about the interview, and from some other information we were quite confident that they would understand, outside the interview situation, that these answers were not good. They showed some openness and interest and gave some promising answers to other questions, so we decided that there is potential and they won the position (and it turned out to be a good choice).

Thanks for this. I felt it was unfair that they only gave me a few days to prepare is all. I do understand your point about addressing a question. I remember they were getting annoyed when I would say I have no idea - definitely something I've picked up at work where they would rather you just say you don't know.


text:
What should I do if my advisor is incorrectly advising me?
I am a fourth year PhD candidate in theoretical physics at a U.S. institution. Two and a half years ago I began working with my advisor on a topic I found interesting, despite my limited prior knowledge. A few months into research my advisor experienced a health issue that lead to them taking a semester off from work. Upon their return, I noticed a subtle shift in their research capabilities. For instance, they would assign me problems that seemed peculiar and unreasonable, but I attributed my concerns to my own lack of expertise in the field.
As I became more familiar with the field, I began to realize that the work we were doing was flawed and that my instincts were correct. When I raised these concerns with my advisor, they did not take what I was saying seriously. They insisted on the correctness of our approach, dismissing my scientific objections and refusing to allow me to work on other problems.
I shared my situation with my advisor's only other student, who is working on an independent problem, and they shared similar doubts about our advisor's guidance and their own lack of progress. I also shared my situation with a professor who supervised my master's thesis, and they were surprised by the kind of advisement I have been receiving and agreed that our current work is undoubtedly incorrect. I have also overheard whispers from other faculty members expressing similar concerns, but no one has directly said anything to me. It appears that my advisor is no longer able to do research or advise students like before. I am not sure if this is related to the health issue they faced two years ago but it seems likely.
Given that what we have been doing is incorrect, I have no published papers and have made virtually no research progress despite completing my fourth year. While it took me longer than it should have to recognize the problem, I hope it is not too late for me to graduate with some good results. My field of research is not pursued by anyone at my institution other than my advisor, so my options are either contacting professors at other institutions or changing fields/advisor with someone else in my department.
I would like some advice on how I should handle my situation and complete my degree. How should I handle this with my advisor without ruining my relationship with them? Is it reasonable to approach professors at other universities, and if so, how can I explain my situation to them without tarnishing my advisor's reputation?

"Given that what we have been doing is incorrect, I have no published papers" - have you submitted papers and were rejected, haven't you submitted anything because you don't believe in it, or haven't you submitted anything because there isn't even any material to submit (and be it flawed according to your opinion)? Has the advisor published anything related in the meantime?

@ChristianHennig I haven't submitted anything because there isn't any material to submit. Everything we have done so far has been flawed. My advisor has not published anything other than an expository article in the meantime.

Talk to the Dean or Chairman of your department.

Talk to your graduate program director. These are faculty members whose role includes addressing student concerns. Here's an example:

Graduate Program Directors are responsible for managing all aspects of their graduate programs and for advising students on academic matters.
The GPD must have a strong commitment to graduate education and be willing to devote the necessary time and resources to ensure the smooth day-to-day functioning and overall academic quality of the graduate program. The GPD functions as the primary point of contact for all academic matters concerning Doctoral and Master’s students in the program and facilitates conversation between the graduate degree program, the academic department and GPS.

And one of the responsibilities is:

Advises students how to resolve problems that may arise during their program

Given that you're 2.5 years into the program, you've likely encountered them already, since one of their other roles is "Works with faculty members to monitor the progress of students throughout the graduate program". They might have, e.g., been present during the annual review of your progress (if you have such a review). They might even have asked you if you have any problems with your supervisor. You've encountered a problem, so they can help you resolve it.

I am 4 years into the program but have been working with my advisor for 2.5 of those years. I am worried that if I discuss this with my graduate program director it will cause problems with my advisor.

@user188791 But from what it sounds like you already have problems with your advisor, as they are unable to properly advise you. If this problem persists, they might take on other students who will face the same issue.

+1. @user188791, you already have a problem with your advisor. Talking to them did not help. If this is indeed a mental health issue, then it won't go away on its own. Your program director is there for exactly this kind of issue. The longer you wait before contacting them, the bigger your problems will become.

It depends on what you want to achieve from your situation.
First you need to speak with your graduate coordinator and find out exactly what the current requirements are for you to graduate.
You then need to have a discussion with your advisor, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. The discussion needs to be factual, you need to be well prepared and not adversarial. When you say something doesn't work, you need to back it up with what you have tried and literature context. Your goal will be for you to carve out a reasonable path to graduation based on your informed requirements from the graduate coordinator. If, after this you are still not satisfied, then reach out to the department chair.
If it still doesn't work, go higher up. But what you have to understand is that the moment you have gone above your advisor and are essentially asking their bosses to correct them, your relationship is over. So be prepared to live with that and related consequences, and be able to move on with whatever options you are given. Perhaps this may even entail switching to another group/advisor until you can come up with enough work to meet graduation requirements.
Unfortunately, the worst outcome I have seen is the Dean forcing the advisor to keep working with the student until they graduate. This creates nothing but seething resentment and is the most toxic and unhealthy outcome.
So my advice, if you cannot fix it yourself, amicably with your advisor, then be prepared to walk away, because any scenario where a higher up has to come in and force an outcome where you have to maintain a fraught working relationship is not good.

Something else to consider is that (in the US, at least) your readiness to defend the thesis isn't just up to your advisor, but also your PhD thesis committee. Being 4 years into your PhD, I assume you probably have a thesis committee by now? When did you last meet/present to them?
It might be worth meeting with some of the other members of your committee to explain the situation and get some input from them. I would be tactful and not overly critical of your PI, in case they are friends with them. However, if 1 or 2 of the other committee members know your field well and share your concerns about the research direction, then they may be able to apply some pressure to your PI. For example, if you hold a thesis committee meeting; present your current work/methods to them; and they voice some serious concerns about the validity of what you are doing, then it might prompt your PI to reconsider the direction. The thesis committee is there for a reason - so that feedback and guidance on your thesis progress isn't just in the hands of a single faculty member.
The other members of your thesis committee should also be able to give you some indication of how much further work they would like to see, for them to be comfortable signing you off on the thesis.
Another idea (which would likely involve more work and may be less efficient) is to submit a paper to a reputable journal that describes the methods you find suspect. If the reviewers push back on it, then that also may prompt your PI to reconsider the direction. As with your committee, peer review is also there so that other experts besides your PI can get involved in reviewing/vetting your work.
Otherwise, I agree that the next step should probably be to discuss with the Graduate Dean of your department about your concerns. If you feel your advisor is giving you poor advice and won't listen, then it may make sense to switch to a different PI. Whether that makes sense may depend on the situation and how much additional work you need to do to graduate. If you only need a couple more semesters and another Professor in your department/institution knows your work/field well enough, they might be willing to take over advising, to allow you to complete your work and defend.

Not all doctoral students have such a committee until the very end - after the advisor oks the dissertation. Such was my case. Nor were any of those people experts in the specific field of my dissertation. Things vary.

@Buffy sure, I understand that things can vary by institution. I am a few months away from defending my PhD thesis. I formed my committee early, have presented my work to them several times, and have found it very beneficial. If the OP has the option of forming a committee at this point, then it might provide a way to get other eyes/minds examining their work. My point is that mechanisms exist to get other experts involved, besides just the advisor, and I recommend to the OP to explore those options.

Another option might be to go and present the work/methods at a conference, and seek feedback from other experts in the field. That should be much less work than submitting a journal paper.

This is definitely not how my committee worked; although it may be true in other places.

Institutions have something called an ombudsman. This is a conflict mediator that exists for exactly this type of situation.
As for the degree, you will probably get it, papers or not. It is important that you understand that a PhD is not awarded due to research progress in the traditional sense, but rather by the demonstration that you can act as a free-thinker.
To that extent, even a "failure" is a success, as long as you can clearly outline why the failure happen.

It is important that you understand that a PhD is not awarded due to research progress in the traditional sense, but rather by the demonstration that you can act as a free-thinker. I understand the sentiment of this comment but it seems a bit glib given the situation described by the OP.

"PhD is not awarded due to research progress in the traditional sense, but rather by the demonstration that you can act as a free-thinker." - maybe it is true in your area but in my research area (math), this is quite false. What is true is that (in math) one does not need publications to get a PhD. But one needs at least one completed research project. From what I know, the situation in theoretical physics is the same.

Some departments do indeed set a number of papers required to graduate - sometimes even with IF requirements.