Hey everyone--just curious as to what stage in your PhD you should consider presenting at conferences and publishing articles. I only started my PhD in October, but am already feeling like I need to start considering these things. I don't feel at all ready yet, am just trying to get my head around my topic. At what point in your PhDs did you start to present and publish?

You can present your project in essence, prior to results as a poster any time - that's quite a good way to start and more low-key. Conference presentations in an empirical tend to involve results and but some conferences have presentations on topics - you could volunteer for that any time.

I try to do at least one conference a year, even if it's just a poster - they're fun and it's not the number of people you meet - it's the odd one that can be really helpful in ways you can't predict.

Hey eddi. This can vary, depending on the student's confidence with their project. From my observations, most students start publishing/presenting in the second year, and alot of that is to do with the confidence that comes from starting to teach seminars, I think. If you haven't already been to one, I'd consider at least attending a conference this year (not presenting) to see what it's all about. Smilodon's suggestion re: the poster presentation is a good one--great way to get yourself known in your field. I have known several people to complete a PhD without publishing/presenting, but if you want an academic career after, I wouldn't suggest it.

Oh, and no matter how daunted you are at the thought of presenting your work, remember that you won't be the only one.

I agree as well. I attended a conference last month and watched those in their 2nd and 3rd year present their work, along with academics and i so wanted to present something even if i am just 3 months in! I wanted to because i had just obtained some very ground breaking results and wanted to share this. I got my wish to present but it wasn't my work. A coleauge of mine was supposed to present his but could not make it. His supervisor asked me if i could present it and i took the challenge even if i did not know the exact details but the basics and background of the work.

It was nervewrecking but i was commended for having the bravery to present someone elses work and even answer questions well concerning the subject.

Bottom line...you can start putting your work out there at any time.

Best wishes.

In my first year I didn't feel I had anything relevant to say at conferences but as I start my second year I have already sent one proposal and have four more conferences I would like to present at. I also will be presenting as part of a panel to do with the project I am working on. I feel confident that my work fits in with the themes but if I get accepted I will be terrified but also excited. If you want to work in academia it is essential.
If you want to give papers but feel nervous there are always chances to present within your own department or university or you could organise a session yourself with some of your peers in the same situation just to get used to presenting in front of others.

You should start whenever you feel ready, eddi. If you're feeling reluctant now, don't worry, as you've only just began and are probably trying to negotiate your identity as a PhD student. A little note: one of my friends finished his PhD last year, and hasn't published or presented anything. He's kicking himself, because he's finding it impossible to get work. Getting yourself known amongst those in your field is such a vital aspect of PhD life, even if you only manage to publish one article or present at one conference.

Don't know if I agree with the last statement. Surely, many students fall into the trap of thinking about too many publications too early on and then struggle to complete the PhD thesis. Perhaps writing the latter is intellectually inferior to the whole publication game but it nevertheless takes time and effort which should not be underestimated. For this reason some share the view that it might be better, in individual circumstances, to complete the thesis first and then fully focus on publications. But that is debatable as everything regarding the Ph.D process and experience generally is. In the end, a PhD is as important for jobs in academia as publications so it's not of much use to have three top journal articles but not a job due to the lack of the entry ticket to academia colloquially known as Ph.D.

I would say as soon as you have something relevant to say in your field. That said, my department expects at least 1 conference paper from each PhD student from their second year onwards.

Jouri, I do see your point. However, in terms of an academic career after the PhD, it is widely acknowledged (in my field anyway) that PhD students are expected to publish and present during their PhDs. I've seen the CVs of the people we will be competing with for lectureships/postdoc positions, and it's very competitive, I assure you. They've all got several conference presentations and journal articles under their belt, alongside their teaching experience.

I agree with xeno mostly. In my area it is very rare for a PhD student to have submitted by the end of the 3 year registration, so when funding runs out at the end of the three years, if they have not published a prospective employer has little knowledge of the real abilities of the student. In that case it is more appropriate to have publications than a fully completed PhD

I need publications to stay on as a postdoc - I think that's common.

If you get your work 'out there', you can also avoid the heartbreaking scenario of being in the final stages of your PhD, and finding that someone else has just published your results. This happened to a friend of mine recently and he's devastated.

sorry to disagree here, but generalisations might not be very helpful in this context. I think it depends on a variety of factors such as, for instance, the field, institution, department, Ph.D progress, "having sth. to say" and so on.

and with regard to stolen ideas, I think it is the purpose of the literature review to identify the gap in the existing body of knowledge and therefore the possible existence of similar work. At conferences in the second or third year it is often too late to substantially re-design the entire research as data is often collected etc.

But, it can't harm to present at conferences and/or to publish as long as the pHd progress doesn't suffer. Similarly, IMO one can not say that it is impossible to find jobs without publications.