I am currently writing a paper for publication in a journal. My supervisors suggested a journal that is a generic journal covering my topic and my field amongst many other topics and I agreed to this one as appropriate. It does not have a very high impact factor but is acceptable. One of the co-authors suggested submitting it to a open-access journal which is more specific to my topic and it is a recently started journal (only a year or so old), but its sister journals are very reputable and well used and read by the community.
When I looked up this open-access journal, I liked the idea of submitting to it, but my supervisor said that because its open access the paper will invite more harsh comments than the other "normal" peer reviewed journal. I understand what he means and he has a point because there are some aspects of my work that are controversial, but at the same time I know I do have a good and unique dataset which should(?!) withstand the scrutiny.
Any advice/comment on which one to go for? Has anyone published in an open-access journal before? Is it harder to get the work published there?

It is most often the case that there are more applicants than PhD places, and hence even good/suitable students are rejected. It is however peculiar that you did not get offered a place as you have your own sponsorship. Do you know that your references were good? Sometimes that can make a difference and the 2ii is more of an excuse (maybe)?
I agree, get in contact with your prospective supervisor to find out what the problem was.

Generally this is something your supervisor should give you some input on, but having your own ideas is crucial, I think. Follow up your own ideas and with time you will find out whether they are a "go-er" or not. I think it is normal to not know whether a particular idea will work, that is part of fun, right, it's called research. It is obviously important to regularly evaluate your progress and follow through with it if something interesting comes of it initially. I know in the past, I have ideas and suggested them to my sup who was not always supportive and rather critical but wherever possible I did what I wanted to do and sometimes I proved him wrong (although he would not admit it), so be ready to defend your ideas. At the same time, know when to let go of an avenue that is leading you knowwhere. Make some suggestions at your meeting and see what you sup thinks.
Good luck.

Correct. I dont know what field you are in and what is standard practice. I was advised to only cite authors I have read as when it comes to the viva, the examiner could ask exactly what x paper was about that I cited. So, to avoid being caught out, I only cite the work that I have read.

I know what you mean though about who's to get credit - it happens (and I seen articles published like that) that a recent article was credited although it was not the first one to make a certain observation. It depends a bit maybe what you are writing on, e.g. if a development of an idea etc is important, it would be good if the refs reflect that, also in terms of the date when they were published.. but I suppose it really depends... and I said before, it is not always possible to obtain all the old papers/grey lit...

======= Date Modified 24 Jun 2009 09:46:13 =======
I don't know the "correct" answer, but that's what I do: I reference the orginal paper/author wherever possible, i.e. whenever I have actually read that paper. In all other cases, sometimes refs are hard to get hold of, or if there is a list of relevant refs in the paper then I just cite that author. I think for review papers that is a fair approach as well.

Well I have found mine to write entirely positively, but that could just this sup. My sup rather goes over the top a bit I find, which is also weird. Obviously I dont know in your case and what the reference is for, but I would have thought it is unlikely that you get a bad reference, but a really good one? Well - have you got a choice anyway?

======= Date Modified 23 Jun 2009 16:26:00 =======
Third person present/future tense should do.. along the lines of

Aims and objectives of Phd work are 1) to better understand ...2) to validate technique 3) to synthesise (or whatever is appropriate)

Future work will include # experiment to fulfill aim 1)... etc.



Or is that not what you meant?



If you can lay hands on a first year report by a fellow student, you can see how they have done it/ what works/what doesnt etc...

I worked for a bit after my UG and before doing the PhD. I found it was useful to step out of the uni life for a bit and consider the PhD issue without any pressure to make a decision quickly. I also changed universities and I believe this is a good thing to do. However obviously everyone is different and if you have a good offer, you like and know your sup, then that can be an advantage. A PhD can be hard at times, and you need to be wanting to do one. I appreciate that a PhD might look like a waste of time if you do not end up working in a related field, but really it is a great opportunity to learn things about yourself, so I do not see it as wasted time, regardless whether you end up "using" the PhD later or not. If you want to get an idea what people generally think of PhD, just browse through the forum, and I suppose it could help if you speak students in your department, too. I guess if you are really confused/unclear, you can always take up the offer and see how it goes. Good luck.

I am in my final year and my comments probably reflect my current situation - this is just from the top of my head:

* Nothing is more infuriating than writing a chapter/paper and then getting minimal feedback on it from sups. In the end your thesis has to pass (or the paper be accepted) and if the sups are at that stage not willing to give up their time and make an effort to really improve your work, then what's the point of them?
* I think the student should be encouraged to write up the work in papers by him/herself, sups should not just take the students work and write a paper themselves, i.e. sups should support the students entry into the world of academia by helping them publish (through feedback, not writing the paper themselves).
* I think generally sups should guide with work (and provide feedback) but also allow the student to follow up their own ideas/hunches etc.
* One of my sups is/was sometimes unprofessional at work, like gossipping, allowing a postdoc to bad mouth a fell student (of the same sup's group), so I think key is to be professional and maintain a good working environment for everyone. yes be friendly with students, but also maintain a clear work relationship.
* Another key thing is access - I have been generally lucky with this, but not having your sup around when you need him/her is hard. Weekly short meetings (or similar) is probably good.

Anyway, good luck with the supervising:-)

PhD_Saga, I know what you mean about the speaking bit. As preparation for your meeting, devise a list of questions you are likely to be asked and then go through the list, one by one, giving answers to yourself, speaking out aloud. In that way you can have many attempts at answering a question, you realise how good you already are, where you maybe need to do more prep, like looking up words, good phrases etc. I would have thought some dry practice runs like this should help...

I would just hang in there, the two weeks have just passed. Maybe wait until the end of the month (another week or so) and contact them then.

======= Date Modified 19 Jun 2009 14:16:24 =======

To be honest, I have not heard of that before (for PhD level). As I understand you are not worried about the English, but the content, right? I know that sometimes you can get support for academic writing, but that would be non-specialists giving advice on the writing (English). All I could think of would be to ask a PhD/postdoc to read it for you, maybe a PhD/postdoc friend?.. I know there is a temptation to get feedback anonymously, but you also need to have confidence in the person who gives the feedback (that it is appropriate, measured, "true")..

======= Date Modified 19 Jun 2009 11:13:26 =======
You are not alone in this - I do feel like that sometimes - it is natural as in the end our work is meant to be appraised by others and we are anxious to meet the required standard . In principle, just like you, I am enthusastic about my project and do not necessarily expect others to like it as much as I do, but I do "expect" them to acknowledge the findings of the research.. and sometimes I find that takes a bit of effort (to convince people).. I suppose that it part of the deal, too and it is important to learn how to deal with negative criticism, but yes, I also feel that other people's evaluation can affect how I feel about the topic/work.

I think to some degree it is stating the obvious, i.e. exactly how it benefits your PhD (your research fits the scope of the conference), networking opportunities, as you are in your third year - how it will provide input to your thesis maybe, if there is some benefit to the department, do mention it.. maybe the poster/talk you give includes input from other researchers from your department, i.e. you represent them..., how the conference will widen your horizon/learn new things/get up to date with latest findings etc. hope that helps.

======= Date Modified 18 Jun 2009 17:30:49 =======
Blimey, this is a *bizarre* thread... crickey, I have not read anything as confusing for a long time...