Ian

On any paper, you might have listed a first author, a corresponding author and potentially any number of co-authors. There's also the thorny issue of "courtesy" or "guest" authors.

The first author is obviously the main author, essentially the person who pulls the material together and compiles the paper.

The corresponding author is the person who liaises with the journal editors, either via postal or direct contact or via the website electronic contribution services. The first author is normally but not necessarily the corresponding author.

Co-authors are people who have contributed to the paper to varying degrees. They may have helped the first author directly in writing the paper or simply contributed material the first author has incorporated into the paper. Practice has been with papers I've been involved in to include authors in order of contribution, first author first, probably corresponding author if not the first author second, then co-authors in order of decreasing contribution.

"Courtesy" or "Guest" authors have gone last, normally supervisors or others when they have not contributed directly to the paper. The rights and wrongs of this we can debate all day long and I don't think a person should be listed unless they directly contribute.

However, I remember my second supervisor got very upset when he wasn't listed on one of my earlier papers. He was included just to keep the peace, even though he played no part in the paper whatsoever. With later papers, he simply wasn't made aware a paper was being written and that was common practice with other members of my group.

Ian

I can't offer specific advice to your field, however, it depends on what you want to do afterwards. The way I see it, it's swings and roundabouts.

If you're looking to do a PhD after your Newcastle MPhil (without extension or transfer to PhD at Newcastle), then theoretically you'll have one advantage over other candidates in that you have University-based research experience.

However, you might be asked why you only have an MPhil and not a PhD as MPhils are sometimes awarded to a PhD candidate who's either withdrawn early or whose work on examination is not quite to PhD standard - in other words, you might be seen as a failed PhD. You thus must explain to a prospective PhD supervisor that only an MPhil was on offer or the only real option for your study. Also, if you end up following an academic path then a PhD will offer you an easier career path over MPhil - the latter may hit a glass ceiling, especially in Science and Engineering.

As regards real world employment or consultancy, the MPhil is a potential advantage as the Masters level qualification can give you that edge over people with only Bachelor's degrees. Staying on for Masters is quite common in the UK for this reason. It also doesn't have that overly academic feel of a PhD, in that you are less likely to be seen as a perpetual or professional student.

However, very occasionally the more savvy interviewer will realise you have a Masters by research rather than a taught Masters (the route most Masters students take by choice). Again you might be faced with the question (though much less likely than in academic circles) why it is not a PhD. As regards consultancy, I'll leave that part for others to answer, however, if the consultant was a Doc rather than an MPhil, it just might carry a little more authority or weight with the client.

Sorry I couldn't be of specific help. Anyone able to add more?

Ian

I have to agree with TreeofLife I'm afraid. If he won't seek help, then your best option would be to leave no matter how much it hurts you. You're in a difficult place as it is with the PhD and you don't want that to become anymore difficult.

He doesn't seem to be the type that becomes violent when under the influence or I'd be suggesting you got out now. However, that can change should the alcohol take a real stranglehold (it varies from person to person) and I would look for a plan B if he won't seek help.

If the first thing a person does when they get up in the morning is need a drink, the alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear for both them and those closest.

Ian

I can see both sides of this to be honest. On balance, this may well be issues separate from the PhD and perhaps you both need to look at where your relationship is going.

However, I admit I myself compartmentalised my friendships during PhD, keeping work/PhD-based friendships separate from home-based ones. I found the conversations I was having with colleagues even during socialising were very different to those with my home-based friends and it was clear from almost the beginning the two would not mix. Put simply, I believed my home-based friends would find my work-obsessed PhD friends probably a bit boring or too focussed on work. Indeed, the few times I talked about it, I very quickly lost them off or was told not to be such a bore.

There is the chance your girlfriend is doing this for similar reasons and you may be being spared some very heavy duty conversations. The PhD process does take a lot of your time and energy, and the stresses that PhD candidates face are probably best understood by colleagues doing or having just been through similar. If you like, it becomes a separate community in it's own right. It's not an elitist thing, just people who because of their experiences have this high stress element of their lives in common.

Now back in the real world, I had a colleague with a PhD girlfriend. He said she rarely discussed her PhD work outside her Uni. circle of friends and strictly kept work and home life separate. This was even to the point that the main theme of her graduation photo discussions were on how well her new shoes matched her graduation gown, with no comment on the PhD itself.:-)

It may be relationship issues are arising, but it may equally be this separation of work and home life that I know some PhD people (and many people in general) practice. Either way, you should talk to each other to clarify where the two of you are going.

Ian

This one has just been offered by Cambridge University.

Anyone want to be a Doctor of Chocolate?

Ian

Another ask for the return of emoticons please!!! :-)

And can we rate other members answers as we could with the old forum design?

Ian

Cranfield is a highly regarded albeit slightly unusual University. It is the only University in the United Kingdom to be a postgraduate only institution. It stopped awarding Bachelor's degrees back in the early 2000s after only 10 years as a University proper.

That said, it is highly regarded for Engineering, with it awarding more than 10% of the UK’s engineering and sciences PhDs.

It also has a decent School of Management.

Ian

Some general advice, though I'm not a business studies person about PhDs and possible sources of funding.

Bear in mind I wasn't a Business Studies person.

Ian

I've just seen this on the Australian process (I've made a separate post about it). Surely the viva is an important part of the assessment process?

As regards your specific problem, I imagine you've a similar oversupply of successful PhD candidates to available academic and research posts in Australia as in the rest of the world. You thus have to have a plan B. I can only offer general advice, in that use your CV to emphasise the skills required for the job you're applying for. Also be prepared to work in a field that is not necessarily what you want to begin with, if only to show employers you're flexible enough to try other things. Additionally, it is easier to find work if you're currently 'active' (even if it's still your studies) and perhaps you can move into a job that is a better fit for you later.

You might find by being prepared to take a job that is not a best 'fit', that there are other areas you find you are interested in.

Ian