The point is tatjana is recommending against it being viewable at all. Perhaps you disagree?

In terms of the work I would say this paper represents a lot proportionally, rather than scrapping the bottom of the barrel. I potentially have a lot less to show if I cannot show this. I think 'some' employers will be less interested in publication and more interested in seeing evidence that I have not done nothing but have worked hard, designed, developed, gained new skills and knowledge. I think this paper may be the best way to do that.

I think there is value in saying briefly in a CV I wasn't doing nothing, I did all this work, read about it in this paper. Perhaps you disagree?

But I think saying here's a few short conference papers but the bulk of my work is described in a paper but I cannot show it you, takes away much of that value.

The supervisor had no funding. I just received a university bursary which came from a research council.
As I said the other authors did not really contribute to the writing or the work, except that supervisory team is deemed to have contributed since they technically support you. Any data is my own results or public data. However, I guess if one says, "so and so says..." then the university has paid a subscription that has allowed you to read "so and so's" papers. Is this enough to say the paper is not my own?

The only other issue of concern might be the fact that equipment was purchased ( but not with a budget personal to my supervisors or me, there was no project related to this equipment just my phd). However I guess I could remove the results that were obtained from that equipment and retain the results obtained through for-free publicly available simulations. Then the paper still stands without it.

I don't think I am allowed to communicate with the university.

If I cannot show this work then I wonder if a good period of my time will look relatively blank. I already have my period of suspension as well so I need to include as much as possible to convince an employer I haven't been doing nothing. I think it will be hard enough convincing them I am employabl as it is. After dropping out of 4 years on a PhD with little to show, followed by 6 months suspension, I think my earlier degree and 10 years in the industry may count for very little.

Quotes From PhDefault:

I don't know a lot about the doi number, but it doesn't appear on the indexing site(s). From what I read this should be on the journal site, but my paper is not on the site. I cannot contact my university because I am on a suspension.

It is an online journal. I am not sure why the article is not online. I have raised this with the editor but have no reply. The full archive seems to still be present and the same volume number in the same month and year, but my paper also has an issue number and the archive mentions nothing of issue numbers.

The journal is still publishing, but my title does not appear.

If one were referencing a paper in your CV would it be enough to simply reference as you would in a paper or would a link be useful?

Might it present a problem if the paper cannot be found in the archives of the journal? It cannot and the editor is not responding to tell me why? People may not be able to find the paper.

The title cannot be found in Google scholar any more but can be found in Google but only with a link to an indexer (e.g. indexcopernicus) not to the journal itself. I am concerned that the CV reader may discover that the paper is not in the actual journal archive. Many other papers are there from the same date and volume (no issue number)

Any advice?

This blog (http://100rsns.blogspot.co.uk/) is an attempt to offer those considering graduate school some good reasons to do something else. Its focus is on the humanities and social sciences. The full list of 100 reasons will be posted in time.

This blog (http://facciani.weebly.com/blog/one-hundred-reasons-why-you-should-go-to-graduate-school) is entitled One hundred reasons why YOU SHOULD go to graduate school, but a cursor glance suggests it is actually a just list countering each item in the blog above. I've found it hard to find a good long list why you SHOULD do a PhD.

A google search on "100 reasons to go to graduate school" mostly brings up "100 reasons NOT to go to graduate school" but a search on "reasons to go to graduate school" brings up http://www.idealist.org/info/GradEducation/GoodReasons. Maybe this is because those who just are getting on with it have no reason to discuss why they are.

However, I think it is very hard for people to be objective. In my experience those who are doing a PhD and are fighting and keen to continue can miss the flaws in any of the reasons/arguments to DO a PhD and those who are really struggling and having doubts can miss the flaws in any of the reasons/arguments to NOT DO a PhD.

Therefore on the whole, for the particular case of doing a PhD, I think if one were bound to be unwittingly biased I think being biased to NOT doing a PhD is probably preferable and if one were bound to unwittingly have an unbalanced attitude then cynicism is probably preferable to 'over optimism'. We can never know the alternative future, but on the whole I think the damage/loss from doing a PhD when we 'should not' could be much greater than the damage/loss from not doing a PhD when we 'should'.

Therefore, my recommendation is to read http://100rsns.blogspot.co.uk/ I think despite its bias it is well written and quite full. Decide in your own mind what of it you think is probably reasonable and true and what of it you think may be cynicism or written by weak minded people, then if you still have a passion and determination and think you are robust enough to stand on your own, go for it and try hard to enjoy it.

Hope this helps.

I have a paper which has not been submitted for publication nor has it been seen at any stage by my supervisory team. However it has been extensively but informally reviewed by some student peers, some of which have since completed their PhD and I think it's quality is at least reasonable.

I am currently on self imposed suspension. I may leave my PhD. If I do leave, one of the things I may do is apply for jobs and so I am updating my CV to reflect this PhD period and my leaving it. I have read various CV advice and it is recommended by most to include as much evidence of real activity during your PhD. I have some publications, but this paper is probably my most extensive writing and represents extensive work and results.

Would I be breaking any ruling or any code of conduct to remove the academic institution and co-authors (who if it had been published would not have contributed in practice, only in name) and reference this paper (in some kind of location) in my CV? My intention is solely to give the full picture that I have not been inactive, nothing else.

I will not do this if it is wrong, but I simply do not know.

Thanks for advice.

I am trying to find a good academic writing forum where one can discuss the various aspects of writing research papers. Can any one recommend.

I understood from the original post advertisement that these posts had stipends, but the offer letter I have now received uses the word 'bursary'.  Is this just semantics or is there an important and unambiguous difference?

Thank you.

Yes it is a PhD. The contact I have apart from the professor is the Research Administrator, does this sound an appropriate contact?

Does any one else have a view on this?

Thank you.

I have had an offer. I can't quite believe it and I hope i am up to the job.

ThereWILL be a stipend. They have said they will give details of thestipend when I have accepted, but since I have a large family and mywife does not work, it would be useful to know what the stipend isfirst.

What is peoples view on Etiquette/protocol in this regard.

I would be cautious and polite of course.


Andrew

Not sure if it's useful to know, but research funding comes from a range of international and national bodies including EU and EPSRC.

I had an interview for a PhD studentship with a stipend and a fixed title. I don't think I did very well at this interview. The vacancy was advertised with a quoted figure for the stipend.

I have another interview where the vacancy is advertised as 6 positions. There are no fixed titles, but the University runs a set of laboratories with a number of themes and one would be guided through a research proposal that would fit into one of these themes.

These student-ships are also paid, but the figures are not quoted. Does any one know, is it common for these stipends to be similar from University to University or can they differ dramatically?

Any help or advice, greatly appreciated.