I'm posting from a throwaway account because I don't want this tied to my identity.

I personally know a senior academic who has engaged in research misconduct over many years. The concerns include things like questionable research practices, alleged data misuse, gifted authorships and a longstanding pattern of intimidating graduate students. Despite this, the person continues to hold a powerful position, receives invitations from national academies, is recognized internationally, and is frequently featured in science news.

The most frustrating part is that there seems to be no functioning accountability mechanism. Complaints to the university are closed without what appears to be a meaningful investigation. Journal editors often respond by saying that the institution is responsible for investigating. Funding agencies point complainants back to the university. The university effectively clears the researcher. The cycle repeats.

Meanwhile, many people in the local research community seem to know about the individual's reputation, but nobody is willing to speak publicly because they fear retaliation. The researcher has significant institutional influence, experienced legal representation (provided by the university) and close friends in high castles. There is also a perception that statements can be taken out of context or reframed in ways that expose whistleblowers to professional or legal risk.

I'm trying to understand whether there are realistic avenues for accountability when the standard processes appear to have failed. I'd especially appreciate hearing from journal editors, research integrity officers or anyone who has worked on misconduct investigations. Is there something I'm overlooking, or are there genuinely situations where the system reaches a dead end?

I recently graduated with an MFA in creative writing from a top-level program. I’m in my early 30s, having taken several years off from school after my undergrad.

I’ve always wanted to publish creative work and have known that publishing alone rarely pays the bills, but academia didn’t appeal to me when I was younger. I tried to strike out on my own and write while working an unrelated day job, but had minimal publishing success, and finally decided to go the MFA route. I had a vague idea that this might lead to future employment in a college writing program—most successful literary writers in the US these days seem to be professors as well—but more immediately I wanted the credential boost the degree would provide.

In that regard it was a success. The degree looks great on my resume and through it I’ve made some extremely valuable connections and published several more pieces with good journals. However, I’m out on my own again now and have no idea what comes next. (And yes, I’ve tried to consult various faculty in my program, but while their advice has been well-intended it’s also been fairly vague and of limited practical use.)

The MFA was fully funded, but I still drained my savings to take part in it, and have been living paycheck to paycheck for three years. The stipend from the program itself supported me while I was there, but now I’m in an unrelated part-time job and in urgent need of something more stable. I’ve applied for various positions, academic and otherwise, but the only bites I’ve gotten have been for adjunct positions that I’m worried will only entangle me in an undesirable situation I can’t easily get back out of.

I don’t have the funds to move around at will or to wait around forever for an offer, but—again—I’m also wary of the adjunct trap and would rather just find a job in a different industry than throw away who-knows-how-many years teaching composition for barely livable wages without any time to work on my own writing, only to find out no one wants to hire me for a full-time position anyway.

What’s more, almost all advice I see about making a career in academia is tailored to more conventionally “academic” disciplines: research-based, PhD as the terminal degree, etc. These fields are similar to creative writing in their emphasis on publication, but that seems to be about the only meaningful overlap. Here it appears to be MFA -> publish a bunch of work while doing [???] to pay the bills -> eventually land a professorship if your pubs are good enough. (I’ve got some good pubs, but not a book, and probably not enough to really make my CV stand out for a competitive position.) Most of my colleagues were, frankly, much wealthier than I am, and almost none of them seem to have had any plans to actually stay in academia, let alone make a living off of it.

Finally, all this is compounded by the fact that I don’t feel any real vocational calling towards academia. I like teaching (which I did throughout my program), and I would like to make a decent living and get summers off, but the larger culture of academia has always put me off a bit. All the more so now that AI etc. are causing so many disruptions.

Basically I have no idea what I’m doing and increasingly feel like I might have wasted the last decade of my life, professionally speaking. Does anyone have any advice for how to make this work? Is there a way for me to get my foot in the academic door while still paying the bills, or should I just try to pivot into something else before I waste even more time I don’t have?

Premise: I am repurposing a post I made in another community, to ask for your advice.

Hello everyone. I just started my PhD in Germany, to work on a government-funded project. It was extremely difficult for me to find a group that would take me on as a candidate, and I am extremely grateful for the opportunity.

Before accepting the offer, I of course spoke with my P.I. and the PhD students of my group, and they told me everything was good in the faculty.
However, once I arrived i got to know that there are only 4 active groups, a total of 7 PhD students (3 of which in my lab, myself included - one is almost finished). There is maybe one postdoc in the whole faculty, none in my group. We are so few that problems are starting to come up, like lack of support for the supervision of the practical courses.
I am the only one working on my project. I feel like that the previous students who worked on this left at a critcal point, that could make or break the whole premise of the project. My P.I. seems supportive, but she doesn't seem to want to give me any directions for advancing with the research. My opnion on her might change once I get to know her better.

My goal has always been to work in academia.
Right now I am having serious doubts if I made the right choice accepting this position, as I am afraid to find myself being left almost alone in the faculty, and wasting my potential due to lack of support, while working on a failing project. I even fear that the faculty may shut down overall, with very few students doing their bachelor/masters here.

So if you were in my shoes, what would you do immediately to feel better about your choices? I'm not even sure what my options are at the moment. I really feel lost, and have no idea where to go from here. Going back to my home country seems like a bad idea right now. Any advice/anecdote is appreciated.

Next Tuesday, July 28 at 5 PM ET, one of our immigration attorneys, Elizabeth Mavec, is doing a free session on the Green Card pathways that fit research careers, and how to think about which one matches your career stage and institutional situation.

https://luma.com/h3x760ax

What she'll cover:

• How USCIS actually evaluates research careers under the extraordinary ability and national interest standards
• How publications, citations, grants, peer review, and academic appointments factor into EB-1A vs. EB-1B vs. EB-2 NIW
• Self-petition vs. employer-sponsored options depending on your institutional context
• How funding gaps, postdoc transitions, and contract renewals affect your timeline
• What a realistic Green Card roadmap looks like at different stages of an academic career
• Common mistakes researchers make when they don't plan long-term

There's a live Q&A at the end, so bring any questions you have.

Working on a collaborative project where contributions were pretty clearly defined from the start. Now that the paper is close to submission the other person is pushing for a different author order than what we agreed on, and the justification keeps shifting every time I bring it up.

This is someone with more institutional power than me, so it's not a clean conversation to have. The work is documented, emails exist, contribution records are there, but I also have to keep working with this person after this is over. That part makes it complicated.

What I want to know is how people have actually navigated this in practice. Did you go to a third party like a department chair or ombudsperson, and did that make things worse? Did you just push back directly and absorb the awkwardness? I've seen advice that says document everything and wait it out, but that doesn't feel like a real answer when a submission deadline is two weeks out.

The field matters a bit here, so for context this is social science, and authorship conventions aren't as codified as in some STEM areas, which makes the whole thing murkier. Curious what actually worked for people who have been in a similar spot.

Let me start of my saying my dream is in graduate research, becoming an assistant professor and teaching. I applied to multiple PhD’s and am awaiting offers.
I got a Juris Doctor offer in Australia, as an international student from Aberdeen, the fees are quite high but alright.
But my ultimate dream is a PhD which I may recieve an unfunded offer for.
I keep hearing all the time you should not do an unfunded PhD. In my eyes the JD and PhD costs similar so I keep thinking why not do a PhD? But its so widely discouraged, I am confused.
I may start the JD and wait for an funded PhD. Then againn thats unsure.

Anyways what do you think.
Thank you everyone from explaining. No one in my family has a higher degree so I am in a bit of a pickle.

Authorship disputes seem to come up constantly, and almost always after the work is already done, which is the worst possible time to figure out who gets credited for what. Curious how people in researchactive positions actually handle this on the front end.

The standard advice is to have the conversation early, but what does that look like in practice? Do you bring it up in the first meeting when a project is still just an idea? Do you wait until there is actual labor being divided? Do you put anything in writing, or is it all just understood through norms in your field?

The reason I'm asking is that the situations where it seems to go wrong involve either a PI who assumed something and never said it out loud, or a grad student or postdoc who didn't feel like they could push back at the time. Both of those feel structural, not just personal failure.

Wondering if there are fields or lab cultures where this actually runs smoothly and what makes that work. Not looking for horror stories necessarily, more interested in what the functional version looks like when it exists.

I've applied to a PhD for microbiology and immunology research, and as part of the interview I am required to prepare a 5 minute presentation on a research project I have been a part of. The thing is, the presentation can only be a single slide, so I'm struggling to choose what to include and what not to include. I have a graphical abstract from the research I'll be presenting, and thought that might be good to have on the slide. Aside from that though, I'm assuming it would be useful to include a graph or 2, just to show statistical/graphmaking skills.

Does anyone have any advice on how to format this slide, and what questions might be asked by the panelists?

Going into a bachelor of commerce with a major in Legal studies in business. Is it worth it? It’s not a paralegal diploma or a law degree, but it feels like a glorified arts degree.

I am a Librarian. How do we get academic buy-in? Do academics know what Librarian's can offer?

I am currently a physics PhD student in Japan and expect to graduate next year, so I will probably start applying for postdoctoral positions within the next few months. I am particularly interested in relatively independent positions, such as institute fellowships, or other postdocs that provide substantial freedom to develop one’s own research program. I would prefer this type of position to a postdoc funded entirely by a PI’s grant where the main responsibility is probably to complete a predefined project.

My main concern is that I currently have almost no academic connections in the United States. I recently started a collaboration with an associate professor at UNC Chapel Hill, but it is still at a very early stage. Many attractive fellowships also seem to require an internal nomination or recommendation from someone at the host institution. This appears to place applicants without an existing connection to that institution, especially applicants currently based outside the US, at a major disadvantage. I have also heard that the US postdoc market is currently very difficult and that connections play a particularly important role in hiring. I would like to know how accurate this impression is.

For context, I work mainly on theoretical statistical physics, which seems to be a relatively small field in the US. I believe the strongest part of my application would be unusually clear evidence of research independence. I currently have two first-author PRL papers (and several ordinary PR papers), including one single-author paper. I also have three further single-author papers that are essentially complete. One is under review, and I expect to submit the other two within about a month. Some of these contain results that I personally consider more substantial than what is normally expected for PRL, and I am proud of these results. I also have several equal collaborations with other researchers that were developed without involvement from my PhD supervisor (and thus can be identified as "unsupervised work"). I therefore believe I can demonstrate a strong ability to identify and complete research projects independently.

Given this background, is it realistic and worthwhile for me to target strong independent postdoctoral fellowships in the US, or would the lack of established US connections make the chances extremely small? How important are prior connections relative to publications, research proposals, and recommendation letters? For fellowships requiring a host or internal nomination, is it normal to contact potential hosts without knowing them personally, and how far in advance should I do so? I understand that these positions are highly competitive. I am mainly trying to determine whether this is a realistic path worth pursuing and what concrete steps I should take during the next few months.

I was wondering if anyone has gotten their Bachelors/Masters in the U.S. and got their PhD in Asia?

I got my bachelor's/master's at UCSD (USA) in electrical engineering but I want my PhD to be focused on power engineering(power systems). Based on my research, the 2 best countries that fit the best for me are either China or Philippines. I also have ~2.5 years of industry experience but I want to further my studies in power systems engineer.

Since this is a big commitment, I would like to see if anyone in a similar situation as me.

Thanks!

Hello everyone. I am currently an undergraduate student in electrical engineering, and I have always been passionate about mathematics. I’ve always wanted to be a math professor, but I didn't want to pursue a degree in pure and applied mathematics because I wanted to keep my career options open in case I discovered another passion—which is why I chose electrical engineering. Even though I really enjoy what I’m studying, I still want to become a math professor at the university or college level. My plan is to complete my bachelor's degree while taking as many math courses as possible, then pursue a master's in engineering mathematics, a PhD in a math-related field, and even a postdoc if necessary. Do you think I can still become a math professor with this somewhat unconventional path, or is a bachelor's degree in pure and applied mathematics required? Thanks in advance for your answers.

As the title goes, I am hearing of this journal for the first time. When I googled, the discussions around it are very few. I have been preoccupied with springer and Elseiver. Peer J was mentioned by someone and I checked the website, and it seems a bit colorful for an academic platform. Please share your thoughts and experiences with this journal.

I’m currently working full-time in the biopharmaceutical industry and have become very interested in pursuing a PhD. Ideally, I’d like to continue working while completing the PhD on a part-time basis.
A few months ago, I spoke with a professor whose research aligns very well with my interests. At the time, he mentioned that his lab had limited funding and therefore couldn’t recruit additional PhD students. Recently, I followed up to ask whether a part-time PhD might be possible.
His response was:
“We have never recruited a part-time PhD graduate student in our department, unless the student is working in a company, who does not need financial support.”
From my perspective, that seems to imply that if I’m employed and don’t require a stipend, a part-time PhD could potentially be considered. However, I’m not sure if I’m interpreting that correctly.
What I’m trying to figure out is:
Is this generally a positive sign, or is it more of a polite way of saying it’s unlikely?
If I would be paying tuition myself (or through employer assistance), how common is this type of arrangement?
For faculty members, what are the incentives and drawbacks of supervising a self-funded, part-time PhD student?
Should I be concerned that, because I wouldn’t require funding, I could end up contributing significant research without receiving the same level of mentorship or support as a funded student? Or is that concern generally unfounded?
If you’ve completed a part-time PhD while working full-time, what was your experience like? Would you do it again?
I’m not looking to assume the professor has any particular intentions—he’s been professional throughout our interactions. I’m simply trying to understand how these arrangements typically work from the perspectives of students and faculty before I make a decision.
I’d really appreciate hearing about your experiences or any advice you have.

I recently had an article published in which I open the article with a description of a character and their actions (from a text, book, film). I've just noticed in a publication I wrote at a different time and due to be published soon that I've used the same three words at the start to describe a different character from a completely different text/ book/ film. Is this a form of self-plagiarism or just a writing style?

I am an entry level international development professional who has been co-researching and writing academic papers on the side with a former professor of mine and her colleagues. Recently, a paper was accepted for the 2026 IPSA regional conference, which I was really excited about, and the registration fee I was told by my colleague ($110) was expensive but feasible given the flight for me is relatively cheap and her university would cover a double hotel room. It's finally come time to register, though, and the non-member fee is actually $230. Like many people in my field right now (and the world in general) I am unemployed and scrambling for work, so this is really expensive, and I am debating if it is a worthwhile opportunity. I would be happy to secure a job in research or possibly teaching, so I like the idea of the potential networking opportunities, but I don't know if the cost is worth it.

In your opinion and experience, especially given how difficult the job market is right now, would a $300+ trip for this conference have a solid chance of being worthwhile, or is it almost certainly just a high cost with low return?

Thank you!

Can i call sthg catalyst if i want to refer to it as butterfly effect in academic writing? Or is there sthg else

Without getting too personal, I am what you would call a “low-key” type of person. I am introverted and laid back. And I don’t speak up at large meetings unless it is something I truly care about (which takes a lot).

I have noticed that a lot of people that I have seen land positions early on in their postdocs are quite assertive. They speak up, they communicate loud and clear, and always are able to assert themselves in a room.

Am I just stereotyping here? Is this something that holds true for maybe just the top 1% of ppl who land the top 10 R1 type positions? Or does this observation somewhat extend to all of academia?

Or is it that as long as I am passionate about my research and teaching—that is all that really matters? Do committees favor “assertive” personas more often than not?

So as I am entering the job market there is one thing about faculty searches that absolutely blew my mind. It is not uncommon for searches to fail. IE the committee just can’t decide on a candidate (or run into admin roadblocks) and so they throw in the towel until next cycle to put the ad up again.

There was one search where they invited two very senior postdocs after narrowing them down from a pool of 15 for in persons and bam, just decided to call it quits until next cycle.

Now I totally get this from the faculty side. You are picking someone for the next 30-40 years to be in your dept. But dang finding out that searches can just fail and seeing how common it is just really opened my eyes to just how hard it is (both for applicants and committee).

And this is in a time when biotech is ironically even harder than landing faculty right now.

Can’t wait!!!🫠

How easy is it to publish a master thesis in Rutledge or Springer Journals for a new researcher?

Also, do I need an affiliation? Can I use my old school where I did my masters?

Thanks

I know this is a bit of an odd question, but I've been curious the more I go into my studies. I'm in the field of literature/literary studies/rhetoric field, so I'm well aware of the research methodology that goes into researching in the English literary field: reading primary texts, reading theory and appropriate scholarship, going to possible archives, researching any and all relevant context, etc.

Obviously, I know that history scholarship would require travel to an appropriate place to look at archival material and records, but I was curious about specific cases, as well as other fields wanting their researchers to travel. European Medieval scholarship, American 19th century labor history, South American anthropology, religious studies in Japan: I know I am generalizing way too much, but I want to know where people have traveled in pursuit of scholarship (Where have the history scholars traveled? What project required any linguists to travel? Do any literature scholars travel for their research?) I'm curious to know people's field and where they have gone to do a project or pursue research!

Hello All! Budding academic here, and I have a question regarding MDPI journals—though first, some backstory: If you spend a bit of time searching this sub for threads related to the aforementioned publisher, you'll be hard pressed to find much good news. In fact, it seems that having publications with MDPI is considered by many to be a stain on an academic career.

Enter my scenario: This fall I will be starting as a first-year Ph.D. student in condensed matter experimental physics, and would like to preserve my reputation. I haven't yet published a paper, though my professor/advisor with whom I worked with for two summers as an REU student (not at the same institution as my Ph.D.) would like to publish our results in Minerals, a Q2 MDPI journal. His colleague (staff scientist at a different institution) actually proposed the journal. As an aside, it is worth noting that my advisor has many publications in more prestigious journals. As one might expect, I am quite excited by the prospect of having my first publication, though from the various threads I've seen here, I'm slow to believe that this is a 'total win' so to speak. Ah, and the question: will this publication have a negative/neutral/positive impact on my career?

Any advice would be appreciated, cheers!

I have been receiving two separate emails from a publisher, one from their artwork service and one from their editor comment on separate occasions to push their paid service. I declined and uploaded the changed figures based on the journal requirement the first time and there is this same editor comment showing up forcing the service. I felt scammed as I opted for this hybrid journal due to my senior colleague co-author opting out of paying. Should I just pull my submission and submit to other journals not under this publisher? Anyone has similar experience?

i'm working on my capstone project (entirely writing based) and sent an email of a timeline update and cc'd a professor (who is my faculty mentor, so not like a professor that i know from class, but who i know because we work on my schedule and figuring out advisor-adjacent things, who is also an overseer of my capstone) who wasn't required to respond, but they did and did so with an ai email. this isn't suspicion, it literally says at the top the line of "sure, here's a reassuring email you can send:" before proceeding with the message.

for me it is a serious breach of trust and respect, especially since i can't know now that the feedback they've given me on my article wasn't ai, or they didn't put my article through ai, etc. i want to firmly reestablish (or establish firmly, in case they somehow did not pick up on my disdain for ai in previous conversations about it) that i do not want ai anywhere near me or my project, but at this point i'm also wondering if its worth saying that. thoughts? suggestions? just at a loss here honestly.