Hello all!

I have a question about the amount of material you can use from your thesis chapters to produce publications. I've chosen to not publish my thesis through the university, only making it available as an ethesis for students/staff at the university. This decision was made with my supervisors as it would allow for me to publish from my thesis as opposed to having to deal with copyright woes if I just published the thing as a book.

I'm not sure how much direct material redrafted I can use for my journal articles though, and for those who have already published from their theses, I would love to get any input or advice as to how much should be completely rewritten or new material, and how much can be from the thesis. I have hard data from completing interviews as this is a sociology PhD and can probably produce 2-3 articles per chapter, with 1 article already published from my first data chapter (but this was published prior to the PhD examination, so I reincorporated that article into the chapter/rewrote the chapter).

Is there a standard rule for how much you use? Or, can anyone direct me to some good blogs/links that would be of help?

I recommend reading some of Thesis Whisperer's posts. She talks about the Valley of Shit, something that all PhDs tend to walk through at some point throughout their PhD.

http://thesiswhisperer.com/2012/05/08/the-valley-of-shit/

Getting feedback can be at times, soul crushing. But something I tell my own students (and need to constantly remind myself) is that its not meant to be a reflection of your self worth. It's hard to separate ourselves when we invest so much in it, and we reside in a society in which what we produce determines our value.

You can write a short chapter and an entire thesis! While it often seems daunting to see red all over a piece of work, it is meant to (as you've stated) improve your work. It's always good to have more than one set of eyes on your work as well, I found one supervisor tended to be more picky with phrasing and wording than the other, and this was helpful in the long run. You are of course, going to feel frustrated and upset for a few days after receiving such a critique on your work, but when you sit down to do the revisions, they don't take as much time or effort as you think they might. Examiners do pick up on whether you have a strong writing style, and multiple revisions/rewriting will improve your writing style.

I always had a heap of stuff I had to revise, I revised one chapter maybe 20 times? But that chapter already has one publication from it, with other in the works.

One thing to keep in mind that this 'tiny' last data chapter might not be in the right place, you want to finish your data with a bang before your conclusion, not a whimper. It's something to think about/chat with your supervisor about. But chapter orders can change, and even what you might include in them might get moved around last minute.

Hi Ellebelle,

I'm so sorry to hear about your supervisor's diagnosis.

Cancer and the treatment required will undoubtedly drain him of his energy, and the likelihood of him being able to continue to provide mentorship and sound supervision is very slim. I do think that seeking out a second supervisor, and speaking with your supervisor about who might be suitable would be ideal. I think it's important for him to hear that you value his supervision and that this isn't a case of you thinking he's not capable, but rather, allowing him the time needed to recover.

I would also approach the department about what you can do.

My first suggestion is that don't pick a PhD based on work prospects. While there might be more structural biology jobs now, there's no guarantee that that will be the case once you finish. The point of a PhD is really, to gain a higher knowledge or understanding/become a subject expert, but this may or may not be helpful in landing you a job. If you want to do a PhD, go with what you're interested in. Caro is correct in stating that your enthusiasm may be more helpful in the long run for the material than 'marketability.' Your PhD will give you transferable hard skills regardless of whether it's in cancer or structural biology research, which includes research methods, data analysis, writing and so on. Those will be more important at the end of the day than the subject material.

Would I do my PhD differently? I don't think I'd choose a different PhD or handle it differently, as I ended up doing pretty well. I don't have much in the way of publications mind you which I'm working on, but in all, I did have a pretty good PhD experience apart from some physical injuries and mental illness issues. I would still do a PhD in sociology, but I might have looked more at doing an applied social research methods or community development PhD as opposed to the one I have. But, I loved the subject, am enthusiastic about it, and so far this has been somewhat helpful in finding work.

Caro has some good and invaluable advice about researching supervisors and their success in helping students get past the PhD mark.

Hey 1968a,

As part of my confirmation/PhD Upgrade/Mid-Can Review/Pre-Submission Seminar I had to include timelines for work completion.

I wish I could post a screenshot for you as to what that looked like, but basically, what I did was:

1. Summary of the Research Project
2. Statement of Progress (I don't know how far along you are? This might be better as a statement of intended progress (reword that, my brain isn't working today).
3. Outline of each chapter<--As I was at the mid-can review/already had done data collection and analysis this was easy to do, but you might not be at that stage yet?
4. A timetable for completion<--this was done as a table, down the left-hand side column I had the tasks, across the top row I had the months. I put Xs to indicate what would be achieved when, and boxes that were shaded in indicated completion.

5. Feedback on the project so far (so what was said at the milestones, as well as external such as presentations/seminars etc.

6. An appendix of the table of contents for completed chapters.

If you're just starting the above formula may not be helpful, but if you are reaching a milestone such as mid-can review, it can be.

Word limit >_<

If you want to be funded, you may have to do your PhD where the funding is available. While it would be amazing to do it in a different country, you may have to resign to the fact that your grades are not competitive enough for international funding. You can of course, give it a go! You never know what might happen, but if you want to go overseas, you might need to be prepared to self-fund your PhD.

As TreeofLife has suggested, you should also look into government sponsorship for overseas degrees. Failing that, you should consider the funding opportunities where you are located.

Australia:

To be considered for scholarships, I needed an H1 average, which will vary from institution to institution. Some schools list H1 as 80% and above, while others it can be 85, or 90. International funding is very, very competitive in Australia. My university had 80-100 as an H1 average, but you needed a very high grade to be considered. I had a 92% average (11.12/12 CGPA) from my bachelors with honours (no masters degree), a publication, RA experience with letters attesting to that experience in both an academic and a not-for-profit setting as well as strong recommendation letters, and I only just managed to get funding. What I mean by that is that my tuition scholarship was provided by the faculty, not the graduate research school which handles all the scholarships, and I had to keep applying for the graduate research school each round as a condition until I received it.

Your average of 3.25/5 is considered a credit range here in Australia or a C in the Americas as it only equates to a 65% (in some places that's a D, and in others, a B), and your 5.73/7 is a good 81-82%. However, this is unfortunately, not high enough to be strongly competitive against other students with higher averages. I don't think you'll have too many issues getting into a PhD program because you've done well with your masters degree, but your likelihood of securing funding in Australia at least is going to be very very difficult. Remember that you compete against other international students, and many of them have exceedingly high averages.

Americas:

I don't have much advice for this as while I'm from Canada, I didn't apply to graduate school there. You'll most likely run into the same issues because you'll be competing against other students with higher grades. If you want to go the US route, you'll need to sit the GRE examination which might help boost your chances.

Where you get your PhD doesn't really matter in the grander scheme of things. It's not about where you get your degree, it's about how well you've built connections, produced publications etc.

As others have suggested, look more critically at the projects you'd be working on and and the supervision record of your supervisors. How many students has the supervisor successfully helped achieve a masters and/or PhD? How many publications does the supervisor have? Can you get in contact with Alumni (students who had that particular supervisor) as a confidential look at how their experiences were?

Their qualifications do not mean anything, they won't tell you whether they'll be good supervisors and help you get on your way. The worst thing you can experience I think during a PhD program is bad supervision, and many students on this forum can attest to that.

If you have the money, you could get them transcribed professionally.

I had to do that due to nerve damage and swelling in my hands. It cost a pretty penny but saved my hands (and ears!).

I'm not sure what the status is in places like the US and the UK, but here in Australia, conference proceedings are no longer being considered towards your publication count.

If this is the same situation in the US/UK etc, I would actually avoid publishing in conference proceedings and instead incorporate the feedback from your presentation into your thesis and subsequent publications of that thesis (if you go journal article route). It's now not just how much you publish, but rather, how much of that is in high level journals.

Hi Alexander,

If you have enough samples, don't get any more. While it's good to have extras, your situation is not a good one and you've highlighted that you are scared.

I would get in contact with your student union about your options regarding reporting harassment claims. The professor is abusing his power and is liable for his actions, especially as you are a postgraduate student. As to whether you should go to the department, I don't have an answer, but that might backfire on you...

Go to the student union, they will be able to help you out on your next options. Also seek counselling at your school, they should be able to help you, as well as if there is a safer communities (or something similar) unit at your campus.

The first thing you should do is check out industry organisations for your country to give you a starting point. Becoming a member at one will allow for you learn about the industry and meet the right people. Most industry jobs can be via word of mouth and not through traditional applications. Don't wait until the end of your PhD, get started now (it's good that you are thinking ahead!). It can take a while to make good connections and start to see results from your efforts.

Data analysts are in high demand and can be versatile regarding whether you go for government/social services or private sector.

It would be good to narrow your focus as to what kind of data analysis you'd like to do, as this will help you target your search. You should also think about trying to join projects that require the use of a data analyst as a pro-bono consultancy. This will help develop your experience, and again help you make the right connections. One thing you could do is move into institutional research, and then from there, move into more industry/private sector.

But really, it is a bit of a luck game. Keep your eye out for opportunities and utilise a variety of job hunting methods, keep doing the traditional submitting applications, but also use networking sites like Linkedin to join groups/see if opportunities pop up. Set up informational interviews with alumni of your school who are data analysts to find out what's required with the job. Utilise the career services at your uni and see if they have a mentorship program.

A second note about vague feedback, a few things occur here:

1. Not enough time to provide adequate feedback. Marking a paper properly can take about an hour or more, but markers/lecturers are paid by a particular number of words per hour, which often equates to three or more papers. There is not enough time to provide detailed feedback. If unit enrolments are not capped (an occurrence at my uni now) you might go from a manageable 30-50 students to 100 or more.

2. Backlash from students. Lately, markers have found that the increased backlash from students when provided detailed feedback has been so hostile that the university may have adopted a vague feedback policy. At my uni we don't even mark up papers, students only get a qualitative rubric and comments on the rubric. Only honours and above will get mark ups. It's frustrating for sure. We've had students attack every comment we've made, as opposed to learning from it.

3. Vague feedback is actually quite common, and while not helpful, a skill you'll learn is how to decipher this feedback. This can be common with PhD examination reports, or journal articles, industry reports, you name it. I've encountered vague feedback not just in Academia, but in the industry research work I do as well.

4. Not every student, even if they spend hours and hours in the library, will grasp the material. Some individuals are more adept at critical thinking and research than others, just like some are more adept at performing arts, or visual arts, or sports, or business savy, etc. If you're not spending as much time but are getting it, that's fantastic, be proud of yourself!

5. Sometimes, vague feedback is because we just don't know how to say it's a bad paper (or, if it's a really good paper, we don't highlight this enough). I've marked papers where it's been very difficult to pinpoint why it's a bad paper, other than it's a bad paper.