I'd add it's very important to document and officially be unwell.

What happens to a lot of students, with depression, is they work at diminished capacity without reporting or recording it. Typically, sickness absence by HR standards is very binary (you're off sick, or not).

You risk digging yourself a hole if you work at diminished capacity with no formal record of illness or absence, since you will be assumed to be someone capable but doing a bad job, rather than someone who is unwell and doing their best.

It is better to be officially 'off sick', and if work is a helpful distraction, then by all means do it, rather than officially 'well' and 'under-performing'.

This will have implications for review/completion dates etc. You will likely find as other posters mentioned your supervisor to be understanding and sympathetic, but if you're not able to work 100% this means your PhD will likely take longer, and having this officially recorded makes a huge difference to how this will be accommodated. I understand with depression it's not as simple as you're sick for x months then fine; but systemically the issue is if you're never actually off sick, then the schedule and assessment stands as though you were completely fit to work, which can result in a lot of unhelpful stress and pressure later down the line. Administratively, being off sick for 6 months whilst working is much better if you're struggling than being fine and working at diminished capacity.

All the advice given is fair and appropriate.

If you want advice from someone in a similar situation, really the only other PhDs I meaningfully interacted with were the two sharing an office with me. This is not unusual. Every Uni I've worked at has tried to have some kind of PhD seminar programme, but they have a tendency to fall flat since a PhD is, by nature, very niche, and whilst you can go and deliver 20 powerpoints on your topic once a month and watch others do the same, what you really want is a meaningful social connection and there's not a seminar series or organisational action that can really provide that. For these reasons quitting over the lack of seminar series in itself doesn't seem good logic.

Probably in hindsight I'd have tried to drag other PhDs to a monthly pub quiz or something. But took me a decade or so to morph into someone confident enough to be an arranger of this sorta thing.

I found just going for beers with friends and venting helped a lot. None were doing PhDs, but this doesn't mean they couldn't offer insight, sympathy, and understanding. Tbh it often helps more to check an RQ or hypothesis with someone detached from academia as they will cut through the waffle very efficiently :)

Btw you may well find this condescending too. But if the way you communicate with people irl, or assume condescending behaviour, is remotely like how you're doing it here, I'd look seriously within and maybe get some advice/counselling/training there, since forming meaningful connections ultimately needs to be something that comes from you. You've had a major dig at the majority of well-meaning posters basically telling them to shut up - yet these are the type of people you're simultaneously complaining about not being in a community with.

Always remember the HR people you correspond with are not the academics making the decision.

I've seen people go out of their way to treat HR departments exceptionally cautiously and politely like they're the hiring academic. There's no harm in being polite, but you're not liaising with the person deciding on the hire, so don't hesitate to ask them questions or chase them up on things.

I have seen it happening when hiring, that HR can easily screw up and fail to contact people. In one case an applicant was a colleague, when I told them to phone it turned out the interview was within 24 hours, they were invited, but never received a communication.

It may mean if uncontacted your application was unsuccessful, but you burn no bridges chasing an HR department for a concrete answer.

It's actually the case the vast majority of Universities have clauses that give them IP ownership of all student work.

This is not so they can pettily sue random students for posting essays online, though, it's to lazily blanket cover situations where e.g. a student might work on a dissertation with a supervisor then run off to industry with their coveted £10m of IP.

The awkward thing is they could *possibly* at a real stretch litigate you for doing this. They will not care, notice, or bother, though. It's the same with academics sticking the many, many pre-prints on researchgate etc. that could *probably* be taken to court *somewhere* but no publisher in their right mind would bother.

I think what you need to do is *try* and answer the - generally impossible - question, where do you want to be 5 years from now?

A PhD is a passport to academia; it has weight in industry research roles, but it's not as absolute a barrier to progression or employment outside of a TA role as it is in academia by any measure.

It's not really about the PhD project, ultimately. It's whether it's useful to you in the longer term. If you like the idea of being a lecturer, or postdoc, it's worthwhile; if you shudder at the thought of teaching or having a rolling 2-3 year fixed term contract, think hard.

Do not factor the 'letting your supervisor down' thing in. It's easy to cloud your judgement with personal things, but to a supervisor it's ultimately a minor professional disappointment. Because the PhD is such a big thing (naturally) to you, it's very easy to assume it's a big thing to them; but - if they're remotely experienced - it's not. And it's far more of your time and money than theirs.

It sounds a bit like you're actually happy in industry, and may well do better focusing all your energy there. I can only answer off the limited information, but the logical thing to do if you are happy in the industry role would be to speak with your management and get their perspective on the value of the PhD. It may be you're in a niche industry where it is indeed extremely valuable; but it's unlikely.

I'd also think a bit for a few months as lockdown eases. A lot of academics, myself included, feel exhausted purely because it's blurred the work-life balance. This isn't necessarily a cause or solution, but it's important to appreciate the current working context isn't a 'normal', and while working from home *sounds* good, it's also a recipe for late nights and overwork on the back of a misplaced feeling of guilt for not working. Someone made a joke to me a while back that stuck - 'when you're in the office and don't answer the phone, people assume you're in a meeting; when you're working from home and don't answer the phone, people assume you're by the pool sipping Mojitos'. It's of course not true but it's kinda how we think we'll be appraised, and has led to a lot of lockdown burnout.

This is really interesting (but unfortunate) in that it raises the question of how you 'call' a leading journal if their own editorial process fails.

It's in the journal's interest to argue they're right. It's better for them to silently fob you off than do a retraction.

Thing is, it's incredibly hard to make a judgement if you're wrong/right or have a basis without the evidence (& it's probably not my field).

It would be something of a crusade from this point. The only thing I can see working is you asking top academics in the field, getting their general consensus, then creating a media storm (in the academic sense!) that makes the editor(s) rethink.

On the one hand, I'd want to say pick your battles, as ultimately this doesn't really detract from your own work and could become a major distraction. On the other, I'd want to say fight the fight, since this is what academia is meant to do.

It's very normal to feel a postdoc is very jarring after a PhD. In a PhD, you're paying (or a funding council is paying), for you to do a PhD. You can focus 100% on your research.

In a postdoc, you generally have the first experience of what academic life is like. When you have to fit your research around teaching, admin, and painfully align it to the whims of funding councils and project descriptions of work. I've never seen a PhD scheme that adequately trains for this.

This is irrespective of field. You've actually done extremely well to publish so much in the first year of a postdoc, and get an indication your contract will be extended. In my postdoc I had to repeatedly pull in funding to avoid redundancy.

It's very hard, if you're down, to listen to the argument others have it worse, but try to consider the majority of people at age 31 also have no idea where their life is going, and do not have the CV you do by a long stretch.

I feel a bit bad I can't really tell you what to do, but can only tell you what you're experiencing is normal and will (in my own experience) get better. I would say, try to contextualise Covid, since some of the things you mentioned seem related and will, ultimately, pass. Really you don't sound like you need advice to be a better academic; you need someone kicking you up the backside post-Covid to go out and meet people, so the academic issues pale in comparison :)

Really anything will be surprising and appreciated.

I've supervised 6 completions and the most I've ever got gift-wise was a post viva hug or *maybe* a pint... but I still had to get the next round in... ;)

Of course though as a supervisor you're not in it for a good bottle of wine (you can steal those from the Dean's office). You're partly in it for the warm fuzzy feeling of having helped someone. You're professionally in it in the hopes the student will go on to have a stellar academic career and be inviting you, when it's appropriate, to co-author publications or apply for grants. The best thank-you message might well be along the lines of 'I'm working on that final journal output, can you have a quick glance as co-author...' :)

You can in most programmes immediately withdraw, but it's an impossible question as it depends on contract (if stipended, etc).

My question would be, what's stopping you applying for jobs, whilst doing the PhD? It seems much better to go from one thing to another than drop out *then* look for opportunities - and it may well sound better at interview, and on a CV too, that you're a current PhD student looking for opportunities outside academia. Is it that fees are looming? Then it is a tough issue but if you know in your heart you'll never finish and have no interest in an academic career, any fees you pay are wasted. It's just a bit risky if you're in a grim, depressing, sick-of-PhD situation to go to unemployment (which unfortunately can also be grim, and depressing) rather than jump from PhD to a job.

Bit of a dangerous myth.

A postdoc is typically externally funded. This means the academic needs to a) secure a grant, and b) align recruitment ('align' being a generous euphemism for bias) such that you get the post.

There are a few barriers there. A well meaning supervisor who wants to appoint you, may well not have an appropriate grant the year you graduate. If they don't, just waiting a year then means they have another year of students wanting the post. They will also have to tackle/subvert HR (you see this happen on jobs.ac with many allegedly external, competitive 'Postdoc in extremely obscure thing only my PhD student could know') adverts.

Internal funding is usually rarely available in volume or at discretion to anyone who's not a very distinguished Professor at a top-ranked Uni.

The general take-home is a typical Professor doesn't have the resource to be making academic calls as to whether they take a PhD on as a Postdoc, they're typically very practical can/can't afford decisions, that can be in the hands of the funding lottery or internal politics.

Even a good professor will likely be more in a space to ask colleagues internally or externally if they have an available role, than offer one directly. They won't have the clout to force that; rather they can point you in a good direction and put in a good word. The most dangerous thing to assume is that if they're asking you to do non-PhD work on the vague promise of a post it's guaranteed. Never assume they're 100% able to offer it, as this is rarely the case.

It is very normal to need to apply competitively, and relocate after a PhD. This is not unhealthy; it will help your academic perspective to move and work with other groups. But it's also difficult, and you shouldn't go into a PhD assuming if you're 'straight-A' the Prof is in a position to offer you a job, because they very likely won't be.

You're in the right space to consider MPhil if you've decided academia isn't for you and you want to go into industry. In academia, it doesn't carry the weight of a PhD (often being perceived, unfairly, as a 'failed' PhD), and would hold you back.

For a move to industry, it equips you with a much better argument ('I decided I was really more interested in the practical application of the work, so converted to MPhil') than a flat withdrawal, because it gives something tangible as a product of 2 years' work.

AHRC, or UKRC specifically; it's generally not an issue for you, it's an issue for the institution. As they get UKRC funding, and the REF/RAE assesses them again PhD completions - they'll (top-down) want you to complete. It's better for them if your funded PhD results in an 'objective' success (a PhD). This doesn't mean it's better for you. And I think any decent supervisor would support a student they know, over top-down league table chasing.

Completing an MPhil typically requires a dissertation completed, but that's held to a lower standard than a PhD. When an MPhil is awarded instead of a PhD this standard can be very low - examiners have been faced with the decision that 3 years work deserves something, or absolutely nothing (hence the 'failed PhD' status). It's incredibly hard to write in generic terms what's expected of an MPhil prior to that, but practical experience leads me to suggest it's along the lines of an 'ok' Masters dissertation.

In general, for someone on a PhD programme who's thinking of a life outside academia - just apply, and quit the PhD if an opportunity you want is offered. It's easy to argue 'I'm a PhD student, but interested in opportunities to apply my knowledge'; and it's a position of strength rather than unemployment with bits of paper. Until you have an offer it seems worthwhile to continue the PhD, especially if you'd still get the stipend.

There's generally a thing in research, that there's a minority that 'live' it, and a majority that 'work' it.

Particularly in a top group, you'll find people that live it. By live it, I mean when the average person relaxes by Netflix/family/whatever, they chill by being on the PC writing position pieces/designing algorithms/formal proofs. You might also find in a good group unless you're basically working if you're awake, you get relegated to lab tasks.

The problem for many talented students joining top groups is they lack perspective; they're so used to being straight-A, they have never stopped to think what being straight-A academically for their working life entails. Top researchers often do little but research with their waking hours. Many examples exist of people that massively advanced the cause of science but had terrible personal lives. Same is true of finance/city jobs etc. It's not just about being smart, it's about making a questionable personal sacrifice.

You sound like someone with just the reasonable expectation of working in research without it being an all-consuming dedication. This is fair, reasonable, and normal; if academia paid 6-figure sums it might be fair, but it doesn't, and it isn't. Take ownership, particularly of the scope of what you're doing. Say no, if you're not being paid and it doesn't help the PhD. Work 9-5, if it's not doable 9-5, complain, and don't think it's your lack of ability, it's unrealistic expectation.

This probably won't help if you want to be the world leading person in X, but the world leading person in X will, by and large, be making a lot of personal sacrifices to be there. If you've reached PhD and want a normal, healthy, life, settle for being a 'B' student.

Yes, but for a PhD study with such a specific participant requirement this is not a good place. It's also risky to advertise widely with incentivised participation if you need such a specific demographic, since the 'noise' of people willing to BS on Skype for 10 mins for a £15 amazon voucher can quickly outstrip the number of genuine participants.

With reference to your topic, have you tried speaking with charities and healthcare services? I'd imagine that won't be easy and require substantive paperwork, but it would seem the correct route to the kind of sample and rigor you'd need for a robust PhD study.

Considerations;

1) Does it really need to classify as 'sensitive' - which generally implies it's personal data with particular sensitivity (unless you've been researching the University's latest shady cash/league table-grab, and it's sensitive in that more colloquial sense). Is it sensitive data because analysis critically requires you track back a case to a specific individual, or is their name just sat in a column for no good reason? If you cannot tie it to an individual directly or indirectly, and have certainty of that, anything else typically becomes irrelevant. Absolutely cases exist where personal data is required, but I've more often seen students get completely caught up in all the red-tape around managing personal data when it may well have been viable to anonymise at point of collection, or they've mistakenly assumed their data is personal or sensitive when it isn't.

2) What many people do is quietly put in on a pen drive, and analyse/publish later. They get away with this in 99.9% of cases because Universities don't actively hunt them down, or indeed care at all about this kind of data breach unless they risk any liability (in which case they care very much). To get in trouble on this you'd probably not only need to 'steal' the data, but also publish something unethical, that someone takes notice of, and a witch hunt begins. I don't recommend you take this approach, obviously, but what a lot of people would do would be to anonymise the data then copy it.

3) Proper thing to do is ask *academically* for access rights explaining you intend to publish to the benefit of the institution. Do not ask ITS. What ITS will say to 'can I access the RDP after leaving for [complex reason]' is 'no', ticket closed, policy followed, easy life. What you need is an 'on high' instruction to ITS to make it happen from an academic.

I would go one step further and say *if* you're interested in an academic role (lecturer or RA), seriously contemplate completing.

You can absolutely get an entry-level post there, but if you have aspirations, it will hold you back a bit to 'only' have an MPhil, and close some doors. Not necessarily completely or permanently by any means; you could look towards a faculty management role, or getting a PhD at a later date by portfolio, but in general you'll still end up doing the work but in more difficult/distracted circumstances.

I'd agree outside academia, it's much less relevant (in fact, borderline irrelevant). It's unlikely to hold you back there; so if that's what you plan to do, it will not only save you money, but also give you a year in industry that you'd otherwise have missed.

I wouldn't take from forums whether and to what extent you're financially liable; read the contract/studentship agreement. Probably not, but it's entirely possible for a funder to create a contract where you would be (btw, you should *always* read stuff you sign - not knowing the answer at this point is not a situation you want to be in. You are of course not the only student to fail to read their studentship agreement and contract but you, and all students, really - *really* - should do so, and politely contest at the get-go any suspect clauses!).