{{{{{{{{have a hug Lilbo}}}}}}}

:-)(up)8-)

Personally, i prefer giving oral presentations.  I find it a more effective way of getting across the key 'messages' of my research.

It often depends on the material/content too.  Say, if it is a biggish conference where the talks are expected to be more polished accounts with lots of data and analysis and all you have is some preliminary data, a poster might be more appropriate. If it is a small scale conference where they are looking for talks about works in progress, do a talk.

I have been to many poster sessions where i spend 5 minutes looking at a poster and not taking a single piece of info away from it.  I find myself just staring at them getting really bored, even at the well designed ones. So for me, if i can get away with giving a talk, i'd prefer to give a talk.

That's great news. I think a large part of wanting to stay in a particular research field is the people you meet. It's a form of positive reinforcement for your work, it makes you want to do more. One thing that motivates me to stay in my field is the prospect of meeting up with friends i have made at conferences etc.

I'm on Phdbug's side for this one.  Weirdness is relative. Besides, anyone who is in the position of doing a 'weird' PhD won't consider it to be weird, so no one will be able to say whether their PhD is weird or not - note how any replies to this thread are about OTHER people's PhD's.

You've asked a question that no one can answer.

Hi Apple, i'm in a different field (biology) so i don't know if this is relevant...

I re-reviewed a paper once (i.e. i was the reviewer first and second time round) and they expected the re-review to be submitted in 2 weeks. One thing to note is that these are not strict deadlines, they are more like SUGGESTIONS for when they would like the reviewers to submit their reviews. There is no consequence for it being handed in late - reviewers don;t get 'struck off' or anything, as far as i know...

The other thing to note is that each journal has an editorial policy. For example, the journal i was reviewing a paper for had a turn around time of 2 weeks for re-reviews. I'd recommend trying to find a copy of that policy for the particular journal you are working with and seeing what it says.

If all else fails, and if it's been over a month, drop them an email and ask! There must be some admin people at the journal who's job it is to deal with such enquiries - it's the reviwers that decide the fate of the paper, not the admin staff.

Yep, i'm feeling is the same at the mo. try to...erm...keep calm, Keep_Calm

i do this a lot too. I've always thought that others probably look at my PhD project in the same way and think 'i wish i was doing that' grass is always greener...

i hear you loud and clear Florence. What really gets me is when people ask: "So how's your course going" PhD is NOT A COURSE! there's no syllabus, very little structure and minimal supervision. IT IS NOT A COURSE!!

That's great news, well done!

jewellery workshops?

(up)

That sucks Aloha, sorry to hear that.  It's incredibly frustrating when everything has to grind to a halt because of ill health, especially when it comes out of the blue. Hope you get better soon, don't worry about work in the meantime (sorry if that sounds patronising! Just expressing my sympathies)

======= Date Modified 13 May 2009 09:50:23 =======
i know i'm missing the point completely and i know this isn't funny, but:



'for a crime we didn't commit like the A-team' lol!



and 'as mcuh use as tits on a fish' hehe, that's a good one.

get rid of that nervous energy! Do some exercise, sing, laugh, scream, go for a long walk in the country, yoga, laugh again!

Alcohol & chocolate........then alcohol again (maybe that's not such a good idea...)

hope it goes well for you, here, have some positive thoughts (up)(up)(up)  Good luck!!!

I just bought a nice little selection of CD's and put them on my work computer: Elvis Presley, Faith No More and John Mayer - not sure where these three fit into the choices above! Loving them all at the mo!

hey Bobby,  I am exactly the same. i cannot deal with more than one thing at a time, i just can't function that way.  i wish i could. My life would be so much better if i could.  I would be a much better scientist if i could. I've come to accept that i am just not like that.

one way to overcome your weaknesses is to capitalise on your strengths.  In other words, if you can't do more than one thing at a time, you're better off using it to your advantage rather than fighting it. i like to write things down (thoughts, feeling, worries etc) which often helps me put things in perspective and prioritize.  That way, if i am doing one thing at a time, i know it is the most effective thing i could be doing at that time. At least that's the theory, life tends to be a bit more complicated than that! but it helps me feel better about myself knowing I'm playing to my strengths and doing things 'my way' - that's what a PhD is about.

Try not to see it as a disadvantage.  It's more a case of you having learnt something about yourself. Hope this helps a little.

Thanks all for the replies and advice, it cheered me up.  And, erm, thanks Jason, that was helpful.

I'm back at work and feeling much better now.   :-)