This sort of interaction and discussion is certainly something you will need to do if you wish to continue in academia - so you will have to address this issue. As per above reply, it's important to utilise the available support. The likelihood is that support via university will be easier and quicker to access.

Yes, I'd steer clear of book chapters until you're established. I wrote a chapter a few years ago and the book still hasn't been published - probably never will!

I've done both. I do find adding them later takes much more time, but as ToL says, sometimes you just have to get your ideas down quickly.

From the perspective of the REF, papers are better.

The real hell is just about to start, at least if you're going to try and get an academic post!

Personally I would only ever pay money for open access publishing, for a reputable journal, where my funder required it as a condition of the grant. Otherwise you're paying a vanity publisher, and it will do your career no good whatsoever!

I'm facing this frustrating hiatus too! The academic career structure really isn't any good for people needing a steady income.

Agree with above comments. Simple is often good. The issue is whether your thesis adds something significant to the body of knowledge. If it does, then you're fine!

I agree with chickpea, no need to inform him at all. There's no need to include irrelevant interviews. Some of mine added little if anything.

It amazes me how unjoined up academia is with PhD graduands. It is so difficult for someone to have a job straight after graduation, the system is designed to deter all but the most dedicated. Certainly requires tolerance of unemployment, which then excludes people that require a steady income.

My supervisor hadn't seen the individual chapters, so that explains the time between full draft and submission.

My first suggestion is getting other academics involved - this might seem like a cop-put, but it is a good way to pick up tips about academic writing.

Yes, this seems to make sense. Of course, it means that the young researchers with original ideas find it incredibly difficult! Status quo maintenance, reflects the level of those making grant decisions. System needs major revision.
I was interviewed for a post on a research project which seemed to me to have some obvious flaws, which I pointed out. I didn't get the post, but I heard there were lots of problems with it. But then the project was being run by a major unit in London, so got funding!

Worth a try - I've had an author send me an entire (not final) copy of his book!

It sounds absolutely farcical, and I am about to make my own attempt at getting some funding. Ultimately, when there is so little funding, people will reject applications on pretty flimsy grounds. Perfectly good projects will fail to include something minor and so get turned down. The only way round it is for there to be more research funding provided, and we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon!