Thanks for the advice! There are other journals I can sent it to, although we really targeted this one since the work I'm building on was published there. I might give it a couple weeks to see if I make any progress but, if nothing opens up, maybe I'll just go with the short paper...

It's annoying because normally I would be happy to spend time trying to deal with these problems, but I'm aware of the need to get first author papers on my CV by the time I go on the job market...

I submitted a paper to one of the most prestigious journals in my field. Surprisingly, it has been given 'major revisions'. The reviewer comments are not too difficult to address, but an associate editor is not convinced that the paper adds enough to the literature. The editor said that I could (1) scale back the paper and aim to publish in their 'short paper' section or (2) take the riskier option of trying to convince the AE of the novelty and revise as a full paper.

The AE's criticism is very reasonable and I was planning to take this research in the direction they suggested anyway. I was thinking of hunkering down and extending the work, then revising as a full paper. This will take a lot of effort and there's no guarantee I will be able to do it. I've gotten some advice to just aim for the short paper option, since it's still a really good publication and saves me time.

I just wanted to get a second opinion on this. I'm scared of spending a huge amount of time addressing the AE's comments, only for them to not be satisfied and reject anyway! Has anyone been in a similar situation?

I don't know all the details of your circumstances, but I would say that it doesn't seem like a good use of your time to self fund a PhD in a disorganised department with little research activity or decent supervision and a poor track record of placing their graduates. Without funding, you don't have all that much to lose by walking away and, as an economist, I'm sure you're aware of not getting trapped by the sunk cost fallacy! :)

If you're dead set on doing a PhD, I would consider using the time you have now to produce a better application/research plan and apply to universities you feel would offer you better support, especially financially.

Thanks for the reply. Departments A and PT have no relationship with each other that I know of. They're in different universities and in different (but related) fields, although my main supervisor in A is keen to build a better relationship with PT. On an individual level, one of my supervisors in department A knows the supervisor in department PT. They've collaborated on a few papers together. I'm also currently collaborating with her on a paper. But my main supervisor has no relationship with her. As for the funding, it's from an external source but it's tied to a specific programme in department A, so I'm not sure if that will be the bottleneck (I'd definitely need to get approval from the funder).

You could be right that getting them to hash it out with each other is the best approach, and avoid getting involved myself, although my understanding is that the department admins are going to care more about this arrangement than my supervisors.


Yes, they're in different universities.


That's sort of what I'm doing at the moment. I was collaborating with her on a paper before the supervision idea came up, and I've been going on some regular research visits to PT. So we have a specific paper we're working on together and we're discussing future papers too.

The trouble I'm having now is figuring out how exactly we're going to include her formally as part of my PhD, since I have to consider that departments A and PT both have their own interests.

Hi all, just looking for some advice. I'm doing a PhD in the sciences, just entering my second year of a four year degree. My research is quite theoretical/mathematical, but with direct applications to more applied/practical work. In order to get direct access to researchers who might apply what I'm doing, I decided to undertake my PhD in an applied department (we'll call it department A) which does some (limited) theoretical work. Department A is extremely well-regarded for this applied work and I have great opportunities on that side of things. Plus I have a fantastic supervision team. However, I have found myself lacking support on the theoretical side of things. I've brought this up with them already and we found a supervisor in a pure theory department (department PT) who has agreed to supervise me, which is great. We haven't figured out exactly how the supervision is going to work, and I've come under some pressure from department PT to transfer or push for a joint PhD with them. PT has an exceptional global reputation, so I'm really tempted by the idea of having my PhD awarded jointly with them. But my existing supervisors have been so supportive throughout and I feel like it could be a real dick move to even raise the idea. Plus I'm not sure if the university's name on my diploma matters when I already have access to supervision, internal events, etc. at this new department.

On the other hand, if I ask for my PhD to be fully awarded through department A, I'm not sure what department PT is going to get out of the arrangement? For context, I'm not just asking for limited external supervision. I'm essentially asking to split my time between the two.

I feel like this is a delicate situation and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Any thoughts would be really helpful.