It's where you meet with others in your research group and from other research groups (if bigger) and discuss a paper which you've all read. The person leading will usually summarize the paper and raise some interesting discussion points to get things going.

There are other ways of doing it of course (Powerpoint presentation for example - but then it can be a bit like a lecture rather than a group where everyone contributes - not so interactive).

I've managed to come up with some (hopefully) interesting points linking the paper to the wider research etc. But advice for anyone else doing this - pick a meaty paper to lead on!

Painful! I'll get through it... let this be a lesson to me, always choose an interesting paper that is going to be worthy of discussion and thought provoking!

I'm leading a reading group next week and have selected a pretty boring paper (I should have spent more time choosing a more interesting one). There is no way to change the paper, but does anyone have any similar experiences/any tips to get through this?

Ah OK, thanks. I think I will just wait to hear if accepted at the first one and then submit to another.

Hey Bah, No need for examples for me. I hope that some of my previous messages were a bit useful. All the best.

Hello, I just wondered if you can make the same or similar submission to multiple conferences, or if you just have to choose one and wait to see if accepted?
Thanks

Ah yes, makes sense!

Ps. I don't think they would ask you to leave the PhD - certainly not on the basis of one or a couple of meetings. Once they see that you are determined to learn the method I am sure they'll be fine.

Hi Alanine,

Something a bit similar happened to me, and I'm on the 1+3 as well. When I met the 2nd supervisor (high up prof) at the start of the PhD (after doing great on my masters) I gave a TERRIBLE impression. I had no idea what they were going to want to talk about in that meeting, and gave such dumb answers - as if I had no knowledge (below undergrad level). After that I kept thinking two things 1) the 2nd supervisor must think I am extremely unintelligent and wonder how I got funding, and 2) the 1st supervisor must be embarrassed/ashamed at having recommended me.

Anyway - I ignored all my feelings of crapness. I know that despite being crap in that meeting (and a few subsequent ones to be honest - though never as bad as that first one), I am able to do a PhD, learn whatever I need/want to learn, etc. Like you, I generally need to spend a bit of time and get it down on paper, and then I have the confidence to articulate and defend my ideas. I'm now just over a year into my PhD, and things are x100 better. I've shown them more of what I'm capable of and feel more my old self. So don't be disheartened. You can do it, and you will, if you don't give up. Don't let the supervisor's attitude get you down. S/he needs to just get over it. And in the meantime, you can learn, plan, and get yourself more familiar with the method for next time you meet.

I know it feels a major knock to confidence. But if you have made it thus far, in my view it is very unlikely that you aren't going to be able to learn the method if you give yourself the time and space to do it.

Try not to let stress/anxiety control you. Write down "So what. I can do it" and focus on that (or something similar that works for you).

Thanks Leila. Anyone know if awaiting a decision on a revised paper should be quicker than the decision on the original submission? It is taking ages and they didn't even ask for that many changes!

Agree with Hugh. Unless it is just a passing phase and actually you ARE still interested and want to do it.

Hey PNPN7373

It seems you have several options: 1) continue as you are, 2) quit, 3) defer, 4) continue but make changes (e.g., adjust your expectations, take a break and reflect, and see if you can rekindle some passion for the research).

Maybe you could write up the pros and cons of each of these, and come to an informed, balanced decision that way? You could even say try 4 for x months, and if not do 3 or 2. That's what I'd do anyway. Hope this helps.

Tudor

Thankfully my funding has a support pot of money attached to it, which I use to reclaim a certain amount of money for conferences each year (maybe £500 - they don't tell us how much, which is a bit odd - but I don't think it is limitless). There has never been a reason to purchase a book - the library provides all I need. Same as pm133 re stationary. My main issues are rent, food, and bills. Life in the UK is expensive compared to Germany (the only other place I've lived). I would say aim to get the cheapest / best value accommodation possible so you're not over paying each month.

Ps. I was able to reclaim the money for my professional membership through the support pot of money. One of my colleagues didn't. Seems if you don't ask you don't get! Might be worth just asking.

Cost of food and transport will vary with country, and even city. My uni had a guide to costs in its given city.

Ooh, after googling I've found out that it means it is back with the editor for a final decision. I guess it could go either way now.