I was largely in charge of my part-time history PhD. I defined the research topic myself, applied for funding myself, decided what sources and questions I would explore, and decided on the structure of my thesis. I even decided on all the deadlines to get me to completion.

But, and this is a big but, I don't think I could have completed without my supervisors' help and feedback. They gave me extremely helpful suggestions on improving my writing near the end, and how to tease out more issues and make it a better piece of work.

But as I said Bachelors and Masters degrees aren't funded in the same way, so why should PhDs be any different really? I think there are cases to be made, but I don't think it's as strong as you do.

My BSc(Hons) was way too full-time for any job apart from in the evenings, and that would have been pushing it. I spent all morning in lectures, and all afternoons in the labs. But I wouldn't have expected anyone to pay me - not just tuition fees but also maintenance money - to do so.

Well remember I was originally science too. My first funded PhD (which I had to leave due to an MS-like illness developing) was EPSRC-funded. I was incredibly grateful for that, even though I just sauntered into the funding position, effortlessly. There isn't much difference between my gratitude levels for the easy-for-me-to-get EPSRC funding and the rare-as-hens-teeth AHRC one.

I still don't think that funded PhD students do a job and I don't think they have the right to feel they are paid a due rate for what they do. They are being trained as researchers. Luckily funded ones get support from the government, although I think it's debatable whether they should - for example people don't get funding to support them through a Bachelors degree which is training too, or a Masters. But that's not a right, or something to take for granted. Not least because there are far too many PhD graduates being produced (even considering funded ones) for the numbers that seem to actually be needed nowadays. So I think funding has to be reconsidered.

Actually memory playing tricks. Was 7 weeks altogether. But not long. I was glad to get it out of the way. Though I was actually remarkably calm between submission and the viva. I found the submission side of things more stressful.

Twas 6 weeks. My viva date wasn't fixed in advance. 3 weeks after submission I was told it would be in 3 weeks time (eek!).

And for the record I'm a Scottish student too. My first degree (science) was in the early 1990s, so no fees. My history bachelors was paid for by me though, as an Open University degree. And I paid for my taught PG Masters myself. I started to self-fund my second go at a PhD, the history part-time one, but won funding from AHRC (initially fees only) from my second year onwards.

I was up against a registration deadline, at the end of March 2010, so had an absolute deadline to beat. My intention to submit form was submitted in early January 2010. I submitted on 10th February 2010.

I don't think a funded PhD is a job. Often the research that a student works on has very little contribution to the wider knowledge field, and is more about training the student up to be an independent academic researcher who can do more research in future. I know that some fields are more directly relevant, for example medical research, but many are not.

Funding for PhD students can be extremely hard to get, especially in some subjects like arts and humanities. There when I applied for funding from AHRC only 25% of applicants were successful, and that was out of only the best students who would apply in the first place. It's much easier - but still hard - to get funding in the sciences. So anyone who does have funding should, I think, be very grateful. Many people don't get the chances they do.

I've been a funded student twice, once full-time science from EPSRC until my neurological illness developed, once part-time history from AHRC. And I have been incredibly grateful both times.

Mine was very short. Just 1 hour and no more. Though that was partly for disability purposes: I'd have struggled with anything longer, due to brain damage from a progressive neurological disease. I'd have lost the ability to properly represent myself in a longer viva. So it was kept nice and short.

Don't cancel the presentation. Present it as a work in progress paper. Most conference presentations are only 20 minutes long anyway. Surely you can find enough to say for that :p And as others have said academia is a small world. The conference organisers would certainly notice and care if you cancelled but were still at the conference. Don't do it.

I could relate to Delta's post as well, not for my part-time history PhD which I finished, but for my husband's full-time PhD and my first go, both full-time and computer science, before I had to stop mine when the progressive neurological disease struck.

We both fell into our full-time PhD topics a bit by accident. We enjoyed the intellectual challenge, but neither of us would have stayed in those research areas long-term in the future. We treated our full-time PhDs as 9-5 jobs, and had a good quality of life as a result. I strongly believe that a PHD can be done in this way. If you are taking all hours to do it then there's either something wrong with the PhD, supervisor, you, or a mix of all three!

My part-time history PhD was more of a challenge though, and if I hadn't had a huge passion for that subject I don't think I would have got through. I defined my own research project in that PhD, and applied for funding in my second year, and got it, on a part-time basis, initially covering my fees only. Often I wanted to quit. I was really struggling as my disease progressed and the cognitive problems from the brain damage worsened. But I hung on in there. The passion helped.

But that doesn't lessen Delta's argument. And I didn't find Delta's comments at all uncompassionate either. Just an honest comment about the realities for many PhD students.

The key bits in any journal paper are the intro - where you sell why it's worth reading, and where it fits into wider research - and the conclusions. It's possible IME to wrap up anything nicely that way. So well done.

I'm happy to prod you :) I took a break after finishing my PhD in March 2010, for quite a few months. I was very worn down from the neurological illness and everything, and really needed to recuperate. I only started writing papers properly in late summer 2010. I found that working on 2 simultaneously worked for me. When they were advanced I'd move onto the next 2 and so on.

I wouldn't underestimate how many papers you can produce from your PhD. By all means identify the most important elements, and the most innovative ones, but you should be able to produce multiple papers from a good PhD. I produced 1 PhD-derived one during my PhD (+ another about archives and disability access), and have 6 more in various states of acceptance/review/planning at the moment. I would always aim the best papers at the best journals, but I didn't seem to find it hard to come up with other ones.

Setting yourself a deadline is a good idea, for the first draft for your paper, but do allow adequate time to nit-pick later. And if you have any colleagues (whether staff or PhD students) who would be willing to read your paper and give feedback/suggestions before submission, take them up on that offer. It can improve things quite a bit.

Have you identified a target journal for your first paper? That might influence how you write it. Though I would recommend identifying at least two possible journals, in case the first one rejects it. And check the journal rules for what length they want. And stick rigidly to their style guidelines.

Good luck!

My supervisor left halfway through my part-time PhD. He hoped to continue to act as my supervisor long-distance, including meeting me occasionally, but it didn't work out well. I needed more face-to-face support than he could give, and was having huge problems with the writing up stage of my thesis.

Another academic volunteered to be my supervisor (I never had an official second supervisor appointed, even though this other academic had been who I'd asked for as second), and took over, with my original supervisor continuing to read my chapters and give feedback on this. This worked much better.

My advice would be that you should look at getting a replacement supervisor at the university where your supervisor is leaving. They need not be such a specialist in the field, but have a general interest. And if your original supervisor is still willing to give feedback on your written stuff take up that offer. But, despite their best intentions, they are unlikely to be able to support you much after they move, not least for geographical reasons.

I also had the option of transferring to my supervisor's new university, 500 miles away from where I live. But I wasn't happy about this, not least because I needed disability support as well as good library provision etc., and was getting all that from my existing university.

Good luck!